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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: edkaiser who wrote (11406)	11/29/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Ed, I have just read your original post, and Downsouth's answer to you. First off, your your post was not the type I was referring to as from someone who we don't want here. Those type are usually argumentive, and come at us with a "TA" approach. Since we are use fundamentals here, and avoid being argumentive, we find that these type of people don't belong here. Downsouth"s answer was to the point and polite, IMO. He listed three points to look for in a Gorilla, and told you that he did not feel the company fit the points. You stated in your first post that you had not read "The Gorilla Game". If you had directed that first post to me, I would have probably included a phrase telling you to "RTFM" before submitting companies. We don't try to "teach the book" on this thread. We answer questions about points in the book from people who have read it, and debate its point of view with each other. None of us follow it's philosophy totally, it is not a Bible to us. In fact, we catch a lot of flak from people who accuse us of not being "true believers". Those people, who wear "white robes", are among the type we can do without, as a matter of fact. I am sorry if you felt you were give short shrift by Downsouth. I can tell you from experience here that I have seen much curter answers to a question of your type, and that actually, Downsouth's answer was "right on" IMO. Why don't you read the book, and come back with questions and points after you have read it. I am not trying to be snotty about it, it just saves us both time if you take that approach. LindyBill

To: edkaiser who wrote (11406)	11/29/1999 1:01:00 PM
From: Bruce Brown	Respond to of 54805

ThatDadGuy's presentation was met with DownSouth's continued probe as well as others if you go back and read that thread: siliconinvestor.com Mike wrote a very nice post: Message 11941764 Regardless, we are not all perfect and as a member of the Bill Meade list serve GG digest - believe me, it's very easy to tire of several hundred posts a month with the following statement: "Hey folks, what do you think - is Stock XYZ.commi a gorilla or what?" So, every time a company is mentioned we cannot expect that we all drop what we are doing, run and research the heck out of a company we have never even heard of before and apply all the elements that need to be applied, come back and make a post and say "Gee, after 25 minutes of cruising the web and taking a deeper look - hey, I think we might have a gorilla game candidate here." Oh, if it were only so easy..... It is an evolution through process, discovery, debate and research that takes time and a lot of friction will be involved. We are dealing with real money, real opinions and real emotions. The best thing to do is step up to the plate, ignore the catcher's comments, forget about the first baseman spitting big wads of something grown in the Carolinas half way to home plate in your direction, forget about the third baseman's huge smears of grease under his eyes and his nagging problem between his legs that keeps getting attention from his right hand, forget about the fans screaming - whistling - booing as you are introduced to bat, forget about the swirl of the wind at home plate that forms a mini-tornado and blows right in your eyes, forget about the fact that most pitchers will toss as much junk at you as any neighborhood garage sale displays on a summer Saturday morning. Forget it all. Step up to the plate and focus on the ball - nothing else. Then take a mighty swing if the pitch looks to be in your zone. If you miss, you've got two more strikes and the chance to connect again even if the noise becomes deafening. It's a real game and we're all real players. Whether you bat .231, .198, .320, .367, left handed or right handed - it doesn't matter. We're all team players and bring what we can to the field. It's easy to say "ahhh, it doesn't meet our criteria" which should be your cue to tap the plate with your bat, puff out your chest and point to the 365 mark. Spit a juicy one on the catcher so you're guaranteed he'll call for the heat and hit the Sam Hill Slimy skin off the ball on the next pitch. Go Gorilla Gaming! BB

To: edkaiser who wrote (11406)	11/29/1999 1:11:00 PM
From: StockHawk	Respond to of 54805

Ed, That was a very good, thoughtful message you just left and I'm pretty sure many of "us" will consider what you said. I thought I would offer my perspective. I am not a founding member of this thread, and I was not here from the beginning, but I did find it relatively early on, and I do feel "at home" here and I would think I am now perceived as one of the "regulars" or heaven-forbid, one of the "elders". The reason there are many threads on SI as opposed to just one is so that discussions can be focused and meaningful. Basically, threads fall into one of 3 categories: 1. about a selected company 2. about a selected investment philosophy or method 3. about coffeeshop-type banter Most on SI are primarily concerned with the first two. The problem inherent in the first is that most participants tend to own the stock and want it to rise and this leads to chearleding. Eventually a short happens by and then the insults start. We've all seen the result, both here - and much worse on Yahoo. The problem with the second type is that everyone who visits has their own lists of stocks they they favor and want the group to endorse. These threads often become unwieldly due to the sheer volume of stocks presented. No participant can do the research to keep up with all of them, and even if you do find one you are interested in it is perhaps not mentioned again as dozens of new stocks are brought up. (After all, if there are 8000 stocks in just the US market that means that 1600 of them are in the "top 20%" and certainly worthy of discussion. Not to mention the value underdogs, etc. etc. This thread tries to solve this latter problem by restricting discussion to stocks that meet the stringent criteria set out in a book. Still, a large number of companies are worthy of discussion. In his Survey, Stan found that over 50 securities are held by 2 or more thread participants - and the 75 or so people who responded are certainly not the entire audience. So there is a lot of potential material. The University of Wisconsin has a motto about separating the wheat from the chaff. The idea being, that we must sift through material selecting that which is valuable from that which is not. I think that is what thread members try to do. I can tell you, I understand how you feel. I presented a few companies here for consideration. None was an original idea - as was yours, but rather companies that had been brought up previously that I thought deserved another look. And many people had "a bone to pick." It is very, very difficult to get a stock accepted here as a gorilla or king. And I submit that it should be, that the tough criteria benefit us all. I agree we could be more welcoming to new companies presented. But try to also look at this from the perspective of those who have already read 10,000 or so posts here. It is tough enough to keep up with the threads and follow your own stocks. It is so difficult to keep doing the DD necessary to intelligently discuss new stocks. So people need a darn good reason to do so. If an established member brings up a new company they will be given some benefit of the doubt because they are known here. A new person will likely not be given as warm a reception. Remember, you are not the only person presenting a new stock, you my be one of a dozen or one of a hundred - in the past month. It can be overwhelming. The big downside to that is that the enthusiastic newcomer, such as yourself, is thwarted. That is something we should work on. I do not have any great solutions here. I think the best course of action for any newcomer is to come out of lurk mode (that should be how we all start) and introduce yourselves. Then try to offer something about a stock we already follow. That's not as hard as it sounds. Keep an eye out for new press releases, monitor new SEC filings at an EDGAR site, read a company thread and bring the most important post over here. That way we get to know you and you garner respect. Then ask if anyone is interested in your new stock and present a few ideas why it may be worthy. You will still be challenged and likely feel like an attorney before the supreme court - a lone individual fending questions from nine stern judges - but if you can handle it you will find that many of the questions help you - they help you focus, help you uncover what you have missed, help you realize all you do not know about the company. If you are putting your own hard earned money into a company's stock these can be very valuable insights. StockHawk

To: edkaiser who wrote (11406)	11/29/1999 5:34:00 PM
From: DownSouth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Dad, my response to you was not a shot from the hip. I was making an effort to put your suggestion in Gorilla Game context, and encouraging you to do the research and diligence required to put your suggestion in Gorilla perspective. I consider that constructive, and judging from your actions since, may have had some positive effect. I recall our conversation as congenial, humorous, and good natured. Sorry you didn't see it that way. Perhaps you are a victim of groupthink from the weekend. Of course, my percieved curtness may have been because you are really "ThatMomGal", and somehow I sensed that and summarily dismissed you from here because of unrealized prejudices. . . . . Nah!!! <g>