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.

Non-Tech : Knight/Trimark Group, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Herschel Rubin who wrote (2801)	7/27/1999 2:04:00 AM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10027

<<Let's take the high road and drop it.>> High road, eh? I have no problem dropping it. It is a bit funny to see that statement appended to a post full of stuff like: <<I think if any objective person read your somber post of today, they might agree that the word "emotionalism" would be an apt description, that's all.>> Nice - first repeat a few unsupported claims, and then say "lets drop it". Sure, I'll drop it, but just as you, I'll append my "dropping" to the end of the post. BTW "any objective person" - I think would think I called the situation as I saw it, not as "emotionalism" - so there, "that's all". <<I made the mistake in assuming that reciprocity existed from your side.>> Yeah, I agree again - I offered detailed arguments and in reciprocity assumed I'd receive detailed arguments, rather than unsupported claims, but "I made a mistake in assuming". <<If NITE rounds the bend nicely tomorrow as I fully expect it to, we both just wasted our time, but those depressing remarks of despair in your post will seem all the more impertinent.>> I rather think not. It is nice that you provide a link to my post (allegedly full of 'emotionalism'), wherein I state: "Sure, a positive market wouldn't hurt, but I'm afraid the goose is cooked for NITE. This is going to be a long time climb, before we ever break 64 again." and "A technical bounce from an oversold position, will only be fodder for more shorting (sucker rally)." So, if we were to go up tomorrow (even a five year-old child knows that no stock only goes up, or only down) it would NOT make my 'depressing remarks' "seem all the more impertinent". Try to read what I wrote in that post - you have trouble with facts and quotations. I wrote not about the next day, or couple of days (in fact, I did talk about the possibility of technical bounces) but the prospects over the intermediate future - sustained rises that break the level from which this decline started - $64 (long term is a different matter). I say so very specifically. That is just your trouble - you distort what I say, mischaracterize it, and then attack your own distorted view of what I said. Read it, and then speak - be meticulous with your facts, quotes, and arguments. Otherwise it is just a senseless attack. <<I, too, can respond at length to your posts with incisive logic and reason, but I don't have time or inclination.>> Too bad you allocate your time so strangely, that there is enough of it to make senseless and unjustified attacks at great length, but not enough for the "incisive logic and reason" which would make all this unnecessary in the first place. Perhaps it is a matter of "inclination". <<Let's take the high road and drop it.>> I'm dropping it - from a considerable height. Morgan <<BTW, S&P and NSDQ100 futures up nicely right now>> Yeah, might be a good time for some shorting - we shall see.