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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (5429)	1/20/2000 9:14:00 AM
From: John Hayman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Ramsey, OT...RE: Maurice. I agree with you and have sent the SI folks a note. Sorry about the OT post, but I feel that Maurice is not really OT when talking about QCOM. He is part of it, and I hope most of you recognize this. John

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (5429)	1/20/2000 9:20:00 AM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Here's my letter. Dear Mistress. It's my understanding you have suspended Maurice Winn for misdeeds on the QCOM Coming into Buy Range thread. I can't for the life of me understand what you're doing and think that this is an outrageous miscarriage of justice. I've been a poster on that thread for almost 2 yrs, and a lurker for much longer. The rise of QCOMs stock price has brought a gaggle of new thread members, some of whom have behaved in a distinctly uncivilized manner. Some have characterized this as a battle between the old and new guard, although I think that would be a grave distortion of the truth.It's true that the old style was different than the new, but the issues at stake here are larger than style. Many, both new and old,had already given up the hope that the qualtiy of life and interraction suitable to SI could be resurrected, hence the proliferation of QCOM threads.. Maurice had been making a rather valiant attempt to raise the standard of discourse. I don't know what exactly prompted you to suspend him, although I wouldn't be surprised if you'd recieved a deluge of emails denouncing him. Perhaps people have sent you excerpted offensive remarks. I'd suggest that you need the entire context to understand what's been going on, and that a quick look at af few posts would be insufficient. You can rest assured that you will recieve a lot of mail from some of the most serious and respected SI posters because Maurice is widely recognized as one of SI's best educated, imaginative, provocative, and humorous members. It's true that he is sometimes given to long and fanciful rhetorical flights replete with sarcasm and exageration, hardly the type of stuff that warrants suspension. I look forward to hearing from you. David M. Gottfried

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (5429)	1/20/2000 9:23:00 AM
From: straight life	Respond to of 13582

(copy) re: Maurice Winn suspension Dear Webmistress; While I don't know the exact violation Maurice is accused of, to suspend his S.I. membership would be a travesty, in my estimation, as he's a well respected and even much loved visionary in multiple fields ranging from petroleum to digital cell phone technology. His posts have always displayed enormous erudition and the ability to bring together both thought and terminology from vastly disparate fields in attempts to synthesize new visions. Any working definition of "thinking out of the box" should feature our Maurice as poster boy. Please find it in your heart to re-instate him, for while his reach may sometimes exceed his grasp, and occasional heated discussions may ensue, isn't that always the way with artists and visionaries? Please consider the totality of his contributions. Thank you -Straight life