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 : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ken who wrote (8284)	8/23/1999 12:37:00 AM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9818

Ken, <flatts-why don't you explain what you mean by her 'duplicity'? Your statement-you explain that> I really didn't want to get involved with this. But ... Don't you get it??? Cheeky Kid nominated you "Thread Moron of the Month". See here: techstocks.com Check out who responded. Then who showed up here the next day: <Cheryl, I reentered this thread because CK called it to my attention -- knowing that I have been talking to company CIOs about this issue since 1978.> Edwarda This is what flattsville meant by "duplicity". How Cheeky called this thread to her attention, was by nominating you "Thread Moron of the Month". It wasn't because she's been talking to CIO's since 1978. She wasn't the only one from the "Thread Moron" thread who posted here that day. Besides Edwarda there were two or three others who posted the same day. They left and only Edwarda stayed, because she was responding to each and every public post made to her. I honestly don't care whether she posts here or not (as much as you and bearcub think otherwise). I value information from people "in the field". But I questioned her initial contribution to the thread, knowing the day before her initial post here, she said "The entire thread is a nomination [for Thread Moron]." I knew what had transpired, before I made my initial post to her: techstocks.com I didn't go into detail about what I knew, because I don't like to get involved with these mud-slinging, personal degradation posts. I had hoped someone would catch on. She said she knew Ed Yardeni for years, and that he had changed his tune about the severity of Y2K. He hasn't. I posted an excerpt from Ed Yardeni's Aug 10 newsletter, which was a direct contradiction to what she said. Her response was to delete those sentences [from the quote I provided] that didn't support what she said. Maybe she knows Ed. Maybe she doesn't. Maybe she's an anlayst. Maybe she's some high-level manager. Maybe she's a housewife. She's obviously bright. Who knows what she does? I don't. And, honestly I don't care. I just view her input - differently than others might. Only because of this "Thread Moron" thing. Had I not known, I probably would have responded differently [if at all]. Edwarda's comment "reentered this thread" is also duplicitous. She never participated on this thread previously. Believe what you want. Like, I said. I don't care. BTW - This is the only other post I made to Edwarda: techstocks.com Cheryl

To: Ken who wrote (8284)	8/23/1999 11:16:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Poor Ken, you are taking so much flack for having an open mind! Sorry about it, really. There is and was no duplicity. I have never had another alias. I did not appear on this thread because of Cheeky Kid's nomination, although I made the comment I did on Thread Morons because of some of the wilder things that I have seen posted here. My "sudden" appearance here was in response to PMs from Cheeky Kid and a couple of other people directing my attention to several posts where they knew, from my postings on the stock threads and from PMs, that I had something to contribute from personal knowledge rather than merely citing newsletters and other sources. There was no intent to befuddle the issues nor any duplicity. I posted in order to clarify where I have reason to know what I am talking about. Somehow, it all got lost in a questioning of bona fides and in quarrels. For this I am truly sorry and shall not post here again.