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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (37661)	8/4/1999 5:47:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

or whatever other disparaging names the lowly envious scum of the earth can come up with [who are probably also ugly, fat, short, smelly, ummmm, My, My, My. I obviously hit a nerve! Your post needs no answer, Maurice, it speaks for itself.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (37661)	8/4/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: Harvey Rosenkrantz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"baseball scores and 'Go Tigers'." Mq- One point of clarification. To my recollection no one on this thread has ever admitted an affiliation, previous or otherwise with Princeton Clemson,or LSU and therefore the cry of "go tigers" has not been uttered in these hallowed halls. The feline you probably mean to reference has been recently alluded to and is qdog's beloved Nittany Lion. It is quite likely that cdma rollouts in Detroit have been mentioned, but I doubt in the context of their once great baseball team. (They beat the Padres in the 1984 World Series.)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (37661)	8/4/1999 9:01:00 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Great rant, MW. I've read it several times, and even tried running it through Alta Vista's NZ to Yank translator, but couldn't figure out who you were aiming at. It's probably just as well <g>. >> So, to Uncle Frank, I wonder if you think The New Qualcomm thread will fail due to assault by graffiti artists or lack of interest and abandonment. I think the New Q has already failed in the sense that they are not able to enforce their charter (which contains 5 items that you can't do). People who practice good Netiquette have avoided making inappropriate posts (more than one, that is), but those with thicker skins (I guess you would call them barbarians) have done so anyway and just ignore comments from the <too numerous> thread monitors. As well, due to the popularity of Q and the expertise of the core posters, New Q has been near the top of the <Hot Topics> list since inception, which always attracts the "unwashed". I don't post to New Q, much to Ramsey's delight, but appreciate the fact that it has lessened the traffic on the Old Q thread <g>. I'm having NZ roast lamb with mint jelly and garlic potatoes tonight, Maurice, so don't be too tough on me. Oh, and Go Niners! FranQ

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (37661)	8/5/1999 12:23:00 AM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 152472

Maurice, << the most arrogant people always like to define for others what the spirit of the group should be >> I had to read your post 5 times slowly to understand exactly what you intended to say. In the process, I backtracked the thread and it leads back to a statement by me. This embarrasses me. This needs to stop, IMO. You are a leader and an early poster on this thread and can help in this regard if you want to. Most people that read and post here are invested in QCOM. That in itself should engender some mutual respect regardless of tenure. - Eric -