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: Michael who wrote (41923)	9/20/1999 11:16:00 AM
From: Ruffian	Respond to of 152472

Thanks.(:

To: Michael who wrote (41923)	9/20/1999 11:35:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Michael: I think I made it clear that the EAL persona includes several people, one of which has, in the past, been me. This will occur no more. Best regards, Gregg

To: Michael who wrote (41923)	9/20/1999 11:50:00 AM
From: JohnG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Michael. Poor, very poor. JohnG

To: Michael who wrote (41923)	9/20/1999 12:03:00 PM
From: Boplicity	Respond to of 152472

Why did you do that? Bad real bad. G

To: Michael who wrote (41923)	9/20/1999 12:35:00 PM
From: RoseCampion	Respond to of 152472

I'm just not seeing the logic behind your trying to "out" [EAL] on Yahoo. To be clear, this are not ruffian's words, but mine, from a PM sent to Michael last night. I do not mind that he posted them in public, given that they probably reflected the tenor of many messages he has now received. I do, however, still believe in this matter his actions indefensible and his stated reasons for them dubious in the extreme. I just cannot fathom the justification for ringing the golden goose's neck simply because you think some people might not see how valuable its eggs are. The individual (originally) behind "EAL" was expending great effort to add to knowledge and understanding of Q's story and position; the semi-anonimity afforded on the Yahoo forums made this somewhat more possible than it might have been on SI. We will all be poorer (certainly in the metaphorical sense, and possibly in the literal one as well) without his keen insight, analysis, and vision there - and here. -Rose-

To: Michael who wrote (41923)	9/20/1999 12:36:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Any Yahoo QCOM thread "yahoo" could easily read a lot of old SI posts (without being a paid SI member) and figure out a lot of things, if they had a brain. Jon.

To: Michael who wrote (41923)	9/20/1999 1:01:00 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>> Sure is a nice Q day, Not nearly as nice now that Greg has withdrawn. If you reflect this incident, you will find that satisfying your ego was costly to many of your threadmates. uf

To: Michael who wrote (41923)	9/20/1999 1:11:00 PM
From: Michael	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 152472

My friend Tim and all Q's : Gregg powers is Q #1 shareholder. He was posting(amoung others) on yhoo under EAL. Many here at SI knew it was Gregg and somehow dream up that this was special knowledge, that had to be kept secret. I believe Gregg Powers should be made aware of the fact that too many know who he was, for Gregg to believe that he was posting anonymously. If Gregg Powers wishes to post under another ID, where no one knows who he is, he is free to do so. If Gregg Powers believes that it is not worth the effort, cause of legalities. Then that is just the way things go. In the long run, I did Gregg a favor by letting him know that his identity with EAL, was too widely know for any reasonable person to believe that it was secret. sure is a nice Q day Michael

To: Michael who wrote (41923)	9/20/1999 3:34:00 PM
From: Glenda King	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Michael, < I'm just not seeing the logic behind your trying to "out" Gregg Powers on Yahoo.> Nor do I. I didn't go to the Yahoo board often. But when I did I always looked for posts by EAL. Why do I feel like I've been robbed? Glenda