To: re3 who wrote (11663 ) 6/23/1999 11:35:00 AM From: gpowell Respond to of 29970
**OT** I appreciate your point of view and perhaps I should clarify my terms. I did not mean to imply the master as guru. It is the dialogue which determines the master. I was referring more to the process of learning through interactive dialogue. No one's "proofs" are unquestionable, we should question. This is the process and through it the term "master" is not accorded the near omnipotent authority as in the traditional undergraduate western university theater. why you would consider this person the 'master' is beyond me... are you, then, thinking that a person who (in my mind) cannot communicate in a normal , accepted manner has better insight on what to do or not to do with one's dough than Warren E Buffett, or Sir John Templeton or the folks on Wall Street Week... I find that absurd... In fact I don't give a second thought to what any of the sources you mention think, primarily because I invest in a very narrow range of tech stocks. I certainly would question Warren Buffett very closely about any tech stock advice he had to give.Believe me, i am not the only person who questions the motives of this poster, and believe me, he is not the only person who's motives are questioned...the internet is an unusual medium and when people get desperate enough in the market, they will believe any silly story, or any person who appears to have GURU potential...if you really believe this individual is a great GURU to follow, well, i feel badly for you It was this attitude that prompted my original post. I'm not saying your wrong just that a thorough examination of all the available facts and close questioning of all with an opinion is the least one can do before making an investment decision. If your intent was to expose this person's questionable motives it was communicated ineffectively. Just my opinion.