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: Andrew who wrote (6703)	7/23/1999 4:10:00 PM
From: $Mogul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18366

That article means NOTHING...don't kid yourself. I hope all the weak hands are shaken and shaken hard. I was buying at $2. Those MM's are smart took it down on that BS...and accumulated hard. They are good..and many got taken advantage of. $Mogul

To: Andrew who wrote (6703)	7/23/1999 5:24:00 PM
From: money@work	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18366

THE REAL DEAL ON THE "ARTICLE" (read below): If you can't perceive an inherent negative bias in that "article", then you need to have someone read for you. To begin, note the way the writer describes EDIG's irrefutably meteoric rise from .18 to at one point $3.00 (a 1600% gain in less than one year). He writes: "The stock spent much of last year wobbling around under a dime, started warming up in mid-April of this year and nudged up near 3". That's how he describes a rocket-like 1600% gain: "wobbling, warming up, nudged". Never has anyone in the history of business writing made a 1600% rise sound so terrible. Next, of all the ways to say EDIG was a smaller-sized company, the writer chose to call it a "flea". He could have just said it was a "smaller" company, or cited the market cap, or call it a "growth stage" firm, but he chose to call it a "flea". That doesn't sound unbiased to me. Furthermore, note the manner in which he quickly and dismissively concedes EDIG's strong points, while he copiously and aggressively focuses on any of EDIG's supposed weakness, real or imagined. I could go on and on about this purposeful hatchet job, but re-read it for yourself. Nothing about it demonstrates a level of integrity, a sense of fairness, or a commitment to truth. If anything, it reminds me of the old fuddy-duddies who used to write angry articles years ago about the rise of other "fleas" like Microsoft, Intel, and Apple. Are those "fleas" still around? I think so.