To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (57965 ) 1/6/2000 9:02:00 AM From: SargeK Respond to of 95453
Slider, Thanks for your support You have once again stumbled on to the truth; but, because of your history - the intended impact was severely diminished. Slider: "... seems to me that if the SEC really wants to crack down on that policy - CNBC may have to be condensed into a 30 min. daily show; as virtually 97% of all analysts & fund managers who have appeared on CNBC in the past - are "likely" guilty of pimping the stocks they'd like to sell into strength... How about the entire "upgrade/downgrade" game by analysts - Now if the SEC would REALLY like to change something... maybe a few major brokerage houses need to be investigated to see what they may have been selling - when their reps were appearing on TV touting & promoting, or when they issued upgrades, or downgrades...were they ever enhancing their present, or soon thereafter trading positions -" Do you sense the rapport that might be developed when the inflection point of truth merges (pun?)? I noticed you inadvertently(?) omitted the latent (sometimes obvious) motivation of posters on Internet message boards. The question of motivation and credibility of posters is in my view On Topic, on this board or any other. Snipers should take time, aim straight and expect return fire when they miss. Fortunately, for yours truly, the amateur snipers on this board rarely hit the intended target and become unwitting casualties as they demolish each other with friendly fire. >g< Looking forward to yet another great day of friendly fire as the OSX meanders without steam in either direction. regards, "The Relentless" SargeK P.S. I notice you omitted Siskel and Ebert.