>> You are a fool. Check out the date I started my y2K thread. by the way, I've been short Zitel long before that...when it was trading in the 50s. <<
That's 1 of how many? I know you started the thread back in May of '97 before, but I read all the replies through July of '97 and you never "initiated" a "Y2K Short Portfolio." Sure, you were short Zitel, but what about the rest? How are we to know why and when you decided to include the various stocks in your portfolio. Even I can be 100% right about what the market did yesterday ;).
>> Nonsense. I continue to be 100 % correct about the Y2K hoax. there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the Y2K problem will cost even a fraction of what the scamsters have been predicting.<<
If I'm not mistaken even YOU have admitted that at least several million (or even thousand if you wish, makes no difference) will be spent on Y2K. A million is a fraction of a billion, a trillion, even 100 trillion, so, as usual, you are far from 100% correct, but very skilled at contradicting yourself.
How do you explain the large amounts budgetted by numerous corporations (Citibank, Ford, et al.)?
>> keane is not a Y2K company. it is a well-managed consulting firm that has been growing steadily long before the y2K problem entered the picture. Most of keane's recent growth has been fueled by non-Y2K work. Read the 10-Qs.<<
Keane does Y2K work, ergo, it is a Y2K company. By your statement above, it appears as though one of your criteria for being a Y2K company is being poorly-managed. Also, if Keane had been growing steadily long before Y2K entered the picture, then they would have had to been growing steadily back in about 1975 or so.
Just tossing a little fuel on the fire ;). |
