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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mr. Pink's Picks: selected event-driven value investments -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: blankmind who wrote (10878)	7/12/1999 2:06:00 PM
From: ynot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18998

blank, aptly chosen handle idtc needs switches to add value here is a hint, they are NOW one generation back second point, there is an entire cottage industry doing VOIP brokering the phone companies have been using this technology, and i suspect the big deal was how to integrate it to new value adds expected by their customers WHEN, not if, the telco's buy the new switches (testing now) IDTC will have to compete with the other small guys in excess capacity market by the way, Hawaii failed to answer the question as to how much of IDTC business is 'wholesale' and how much is corporate convenient, this is the business that evaporates, very soon, imho VOIP is actually pretty complex, not the service, but the combination of software, switches, gateways and the most important, billing as for Walmart, not relevant to this discussion good luck ynot ;)

To: blankmind who wrote (10878)	7/12/1999 2:17:00 PM
From: blankmind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18998

mod, what does this look like to you? #reply-10471416 It looks like you modified your rude post to me once you realized you were wrong. Here is your original post, for all who did not have a chance to read it before you changed it: To: +mod (11231 ) From: +Mama Bear Monday, Jul 12 1999 1:25PM ET Reply # [][]of 11233 mod, the only one digging in deeper is you. I stand by my response. It is evident that you don't care about the truth. Why don't you address why you tried to mislead folks into believing the articles were two days apart? Why don't you address why you're trying to present an obviously minor error as a lie? Barb I never once accused you of lying, YOU accused someone of lying: To: +blankmind (11197 ) From: +Mama Bear Monday, Jul 12 1999 10:39AM ET Reply # [][]of 11237 " i wonder if hg considers the fact that he did not mention for a couple of days the return call as libel from the boards? " How nice of you to post an untruth while attacking someone's credibility. The fact of the matter is that the return call was at 7:30PM EDT on 7/7/99 and it was addressed at 6:30AM on 7/8/99. It's very strange how people will lie in order to prove someone uncredible. Barb Now you are running to SI to delete your incorrect posts, to try to hide the fact that you were wrong after the fact? Why not let the posts stand and just apologize? Why the attempted coverup? mod Message 10472038