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: Mike Buckley who wrote (14365)	1/6/2000 10:48:00 PM
From: mariner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Thread My top five reasons for why I think we're near the bottom (sometime Friday): 5/ CNBC talking heads and gurus imploring us to buy cyclicals and value stocks (oh yeah, I need more steelmakers in my portfolio, why didn't I think of that sooner). 4/ A big number (employment stats) coming out Friday - market anxiously waiting for the worst, highly melodramatic. 3/ Some normally highly resilient thread personalities (on many threads) starting to show signs of panic. 2/ A very big name (LU) reporting a critical shortfall, which initally causes panic (see the after hours markets) until rational investors understand that LU's problems are company specific not industry wide(see recent NT/CSCO press releases confirming comfort with their targets). And the number one reason: 1/ Lindybill thinking about timing QCOM again!<g> (With apologies to Lindy, one of the most prescient investors I've met here at SI). My advice:(free, no warranty): This is an excellent time to be nibbling at those stocks we all think are 5 to 10 year keepers. This is the time to be buying ON SALE. One doesn't need to make a complete bet yet, but it wouldn't hurt to be averaging in here. If I didn't own QCOM yet, and had always regretted not buying earlier, I'd be establishing a position now. All my opinion only. Please feel free to disagree completely at anytime. PS: Happy New Year to everyone.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (14365)	1/7/2000 12:15:00 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>> Should I choose to undo the ignore function, I will be equally open about my reasoning. It would most likely be a genuine apology that would bring that about. Take off your <ignore> and perhaps you'll agree there was one, Mike. Just take into account that everyone isn't as demonstrative as you and I are. Imo, coordinated <ignore> campaigns are a form of shunning, and are a strong indication of group think. Each member of the thread should be free to make their own decision about the usefulness of a person's writings, and not be put under unintentional pressure to agree with influential threadmates. I've had a few bad days myself, Mike. Maybe that's why I feel empathy for the people involved. Besides, after a year like 1999 it's hard to be upset with anything <g>. jmho, Frank

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (14365)	1/7/2000 3:47:00 AM
From: chaz	Respond to of 54805

Mike, my reaction to you know who's brutal, insensitive, remarkable, pitifully revealing remark took nanoseconds to register. I have absolutely no use whatever for such people in my personal life, and have no intention of ever allowing them to discolor my pleasure on this thread. Frank, bless him, may judge others as he sees fit, and that's his call. I don't see how that individual, like the leopard, will change his spots...he's the way he is and the general rebuke he's been met with very probably escapes him. He needs help of the sort I am not trained to provide, and he didn't get that way overnight. It was clear, at least to me, that he's practiced at it. One demonstration was enough for me. My "ignore" will stand.