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 : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Rose who wrote (22874)	6/17/1999 2:52:00 PM
From: Robert Rose	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 41369

My apologies to the thread. I meant the previous message as a private message that accidentally got posted as a public message. I going to go into lurking mode now, because I really do not mean to offend anyone. Best regards to all. Go AOL!

To: Robert Rose who wrote (22874)	6/17/1999 3:19:00 PM
From: Ed Forrest	Respond to of 41369

>>when I went back to it it was gone !?! As well as Ed Forrest's before yours<< I erased mine but I know there is a problem with SI today and have notified them of it.Sometimes when responding to a post I was unable to post the response. Ed Forrest

To: Robert Rose who wrote (22874)	6/17/1999 4:06:00 PM
From: im a survivor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 41369

<< Just want to say that I'm getting sick and tired with this witch hunt against someone who actually contributes to the thread as opposed to all those mindless cheerleaders. KEEP POSTING!!!!!!!!!!! Rob >> Robert, First of all this is certainly not a witch hunt. The questions left unanswered by Steeny are very valid questions. In fact, they are questions others wanted answered as evidenced by the private mail I received. I simply responded because I thought Tang had asked the same questions earlier, I thought they were very valid questions, and Steeny's response seemed vague. I too, abhor the endless cheerleading ( Mr. Duke, who is getting much better, and others..) and the constant bashing ( Rico, and again, many others ) that goes on. I do not put Steeny into either category. If everybody that posted was as intelligent and straightforward as Steeny, these threads would be much more useful. However, that doesn't warrant ignoring, or not asking valid questions. For the simple reason that Steeny is as well respected and followed on this thread, is even more reason to ask those questions. He is not some Joe Schmoe that everybody ignores...people follow him and look forward to his advice. Again, in my eyes, that makes it even more important for him to be forthright, in every manner, way or form. Again, let me say this certainly is not a witch hunt and I am in know way out to harm Steeny at all. In fact, he is one of the few people I have bookmarked...I don't always agree with him but I still find his posts as informative as any on this board. All that said and done, I still feel somebody of his "stature" on this thread should offer full disclosure and saying that does not mean anybody is " out to get anybody ", so don't all you loonies pop up with ridiculous replies. They are valid questions, and last time I checked, that is the reason we are here. Regards, KG