Robert, feel free to insult me any time it makes you feel better. -g- I am just a casual observer these days, as I sold my last 200 shares a month or so ago. I may buy in again at some point, depending on how the company performs in Q1 1997 and how the semi market as a whole does. The company as it exists today is not the company that I invested in, and I am waiting to see if the new larger company is one in which I wish to invest or not.
While you are free to insult me, I do think you owe a bit more courtesy to others such as Zeev on the thread who disagree with you, especially if you wish to benefit from whatever insight they may have to offer. On threads where I post, I actively encourage posts from people who disagree with me because I have found that if you only listen to people who agree with you, you can never learn, and it is always good to see how the same facts can be seen from another perspective.
Also, it never is constructive to make disagreements on views into personal attacks. I for one have found the discussion on this thread between some of the participants to be interesting but have been disappointed by the fact that one or more of the participants seem to take disagreements as personal attacks or challenges to their ego rather than as constructive discourse.
So that you can consider the way you have treated others on this thread, I have selected a few choice samples of the sophisticated impersonal intellectual dialogue to which you have treated those on the thread. Contemplate whether the comments below address the arguments themselves, or whether they are intended to discredit or ridicule the person making the argument:
In post #75 on July 23 to Zeev you said:
"In your case, I meant valium. Buddy, I think you're stressing way too much on this one."
In post #91 on Aug. 8 to Lone Star you ridiculed his post and described his input (which I thought had merit, incidently) as an "overly broad and vapid comment."
In post #109 on Aug 19 you said that you "felt I should respond lest someone mistake them for facts or future".
In the same post you add:
"You should be on the phone to Clinton, Dole or Perot right now. If one of them doesn't offer you a position right away, I'm sure Greenspan will."
In #142 on Aug. 31 you describe Zeev's post as "your rant"
In #148 on Sept 4 you said:
"Boy, you guys sure like to hear yourselves talk. I haven't heard this much pontificating since I visited the Vatican. It'll be nice to get back to the dreaded specifics of PMT when you're done stroking your egos."
In #177 on Oct. 2, when Zeev suggested the potential for a clash of egos between the Electrotech people and the PMAT people, you dismiss it by saying:
"Unfortunately, that statement tells me a lot more about Zeev than the management at PMT."
In #232 on Dec. 15 you say "you must be "right". Forgive me, however, for ignoring your exhortations".
So insult me whenever you like, but please try to be a little more polite to the others who disagree with you. And try to address their arguments rather than insulting them, ridiculing them, or impugning their motives, and I think that this can become a more valuable forum for all concerned.
Carl |
