SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : WAVX Anyone? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Arthur Radley who wrote (8870)8/30/1999 12:05:00 PM
From: ecommerceman  Respond to of 11417
 
Tex--I don't believe you are an ignoramus in the slightest--you obviously are an intelligent person; I do, however, believe you are willfully ignorant about WAVX, and that belief is based upon the fact that so many folks have spent so much time painstakingly explaining to you the WAVX story, and yet you continue to make the same tired responses about lack of revenue, 11 years in business, Spragues as greed-heads, all of which have been answered several times.

You'll get no argument from me about the fact that deployment hasn't been as quick as we've hoped. That is THE issue--if deployment happens, WAVX will be worth a ton; if it doesn't, then we're in trouble, big trouble.

Finally, you wrote: "...when I first posted here on SI about WAVX, the stock was trading near $20.00. I assume you bought the stock at the $2-$3 and it is fine with me that your score card reflects this price level. If it is okay with you, my score card will reflect $20.00. I bet even your banker would agree that it is entry and exit points that count.(:>)"

Tex--if you aren't long (which is obvious...), and if you aren't short (which is what you say, so I assume is true), then you don't HAVE a scorecard. You are an observer, nothing less, nothing more. A loquacious observer, to be sure, but still an observer. What puzzles me is why--if you have no financial interest in the stock--you even bother to share your observations with us; care to comment on that, Tex?

(:>)