Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : e.Digital Corporation(EDIG) - Embedded Digital Technology -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JAMES F. CLASPILL III who wrote (5684)	6/13/1999 1:54:00 PM
From: chris431	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 18366

Attacking Walter and a note to Kerry Sadly for the thread, people would rather attack the poster (WM) than any "negative slant" that he has put out. Usually, his "negative slants" were links to articles rather than his personal commentary. As such, all that people have argued is that WM may not be a person of great character. Hmmmm....this doesn't do much to discount any of the info of those articles (you guys need to get busy with tracking down all those authors, families, relatives, police records). You can only discount so much of his "negative slant" by personally attacking him (which may cover the response he allegedly received but has yet to post....as a side note, he would also not privately send it to me and in fact did not respond. As such, I'm in no way trying to bolster his claims). Let alone referring to an admittedly 3rd hand critique of WM from someone who hasn't even read most of what WM has written. Come on. This is pretty sad. Kerry, why is it that when there is some "unkown" about the company that is negative, you viciously attack the source or the information to attempt to make it false, yet when there is an "unknown" that is positive for the company, you suggest that it should be taken at face value as true, without investigation? Isn't that just a bit hypocritical? We've seen 2 examples so far....news that Unviersal had a deal with Lucent/EDIG (later proven editorial mistake even after you bashed those trying to show it false) and the comments by the interviewer (which still appear to me to be more likely journalist mispeak) which you have stated are so true that anyone who really understands EDIG's technology would know they are true. In both instances, you expended little energy and basically stated they must be true. The "unkown" negatives of course stems from the same interview, that being the "unkown" of the response to Walter Morton (which would be negative to the company compared to if the news was affirmative) and my inquiry about the Universal/EDIG/Lucent deal. In both instances you were at the forefront of attacking the possibility that the "negatives" are the truth. Why not spend as much energy trying to find the truth, in general, be it positive for EDIG or be it a simple correction of an error? Aren't many of you rallying about misinformation? Yet, it seems there is only 1 sort of misinformation you dislike....that which isn't positive for EDIG. Chris