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.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SI Bob who wrote (4427)	1/29/2000 12:06:00 AM
From: dclapp	Respond to of 17683

Bob, With all due respect, it's difficult to (sniff, sniff) "critique" something that is truly an outrageous parody of anything remotely close to "financial news" (quotes needed). Truly, much of CNBS should be put in a time capsule for the next generation to shake their head at. But, if "critique" it must be, I'll do my part: CNBC, by it's "mania bias" despite a cultivated appearance of being a "unbiased financial news network" has, and will continue to give, great harm to naive "investors" who actually believe the unending parade of stock pimps who are presented seriously to their viewers. I suspect Warren Buffet would blow chunks. Should we do less? Now, what's the market cap of GoNet again? Best, Doug

To: SI Bob who wrote (4427)	1/29/2000 12:06:00 AM
From: Yogizuna	Respond to of 17683

Bob, This thread was practically "dead" before the past few days... In fact, I was sincerely shocked when our ISP came back on-line and I came over here and saw all of the posts! Many of the dues paying SI members are have an interesting time of it here, and believe me Bob, after ten straight years of bulletin board experience, I can honestly tell you that it will calm down again... I have seen this type of "phenomenon" over and over again. It's nothing new, and "stirring up the pot" will only make it worse... (as you have seen today) So let's "lighten up", let it blow over, and the board will be dead again. Trust me on this one. Yogi

To: SI Bob who wrote (4427)	1/29/2000 1:13:00 AM
From: Blue Snowshoe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17683

SI BOB, I can see your point believe me. I have a very good understanding of the internet and how often we say the same things in different ways and it comes out wrong. Let me be very clear here. I feel the overall quality of SI has gone down due to nasty people. I'll get attack for saying this but I don't care. This thread could use some changes. Critique, in my mind is to talk about something, review it, with a reason (perhaps to make it better). This thread could be very valuable to SI and CNBC, it is not. It is a place for name calling but it is not just here and that was my point about GNET and Mark Haines. I can't put in print the words I had for Mark Haines when he lit into Russell that day of the interview or I'd be bounced from SI in a second. I called Mark names only paratroopers know. I had six figures of my own money in GNET (not OPM) and Mark seemed almost pissed at Russ and I knew the stock was going to take a hit. Now what do you do about that? You PM Russell and tell him to avoid Mark in the future, you poke fun at Mark, call him "Bark" and then without being nasty, you use Kevin Watson's talents to toast them all funphone.com Look at the spirit of that link and then think about what is said on this thread. I'm not judging anyone but I am asking some people to lighten up. What a royal pain in the a$$ for SI Bob and the CNBC crew this thread must be at times. There is a member of a network news crew that I know that is a smart, funny, but most of all a REGULAR GUY. That is the best thing I can ever say about anyone. In other words, money, fame, or life doesn't keep them from being what we would all like to be just simple "good people". I don't think we can have a useful thread with regular guys (and gals) until the name calling ends on this thread. I'm not telling anyone what to say, I'm just saying what I think could help this thread. I think we should cool the name calling, and Maria has a degree so she is not an airhead. If she puts on a pound or two or her makeup isn't perfect, well, neither are any of us. We all have bad days and good ones. That goes for people who report news too so be kind people. SI Bob, I've said it before, you have the toughest job on SI. I agree on the name calling but I was talking about a double standard (eg above link). I wasn't trying to give you a hard time. There will always be name calling, let's just try to use this thread as more of a place to be friendly and have some fun without hurting others. Let's start with the name calling. And then let's do something. List three things that CNBC could do to make it more useful for you. I'll go first: 1) Give Rick Santelli (?sp) some air time to explain the bond markets, how they effect stocks, floor terms, etc. 2) Report each day on the biggest PERCENTAGE stocks gainers, that are not stocks like DELL, MSFT etc., tell us about a THCG before they are ICGE or CMGI. 3) Show at least a minute or two of images from the Hubble each day. I know people at NASA who would be glad for the press. Shouldn't we take a minute from stocks and look at something like this each day?http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/astro/hst_deep_field.jpg SI Bob, others, have a good weekend. No more name calling on this thread please. Make it better, send three ideas for CNBC programming. Blue

To: SI Bob who wrote (4427)	1/29/2000 12:34:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

I am sorry that you deleted Gary's post. The one where he made the reference to masturbation was objectively offensive, and I don't disagree with your deleting it. The one where he said Bartiromo is a cheerleader, has a fish hook in her mouth to make her shill for corporations, and isn't hired for her brains was dead-on, and one of the most trenchant, honest evaluations of CNBC and its ilk and scam-a-rama toutathons that substitute for financial advice I've ever read, EVER. Someday social historians are going to look back on this era in wonder. Everywhere I go, my bank, restaurants, bars, even electronics stores, if there is a television, it's turned to CNBC or CNNFN, all day long while the market is open, and people stand there with gaping mouths watching. People think "it's on TV, so it must be true" because they are vaguely aware of the Truth in Advertising Act. So they swallow, unquestioningly, the touting and shilling they see on these programs, and it's going to destroy them, ultimately. When it's all done, and their money that should have been spent on rent, mortgages, credit cards, and their children's educations has gone to Money Heaven, will you be proud of stopping the voice of someone who cried out that the Emperor has no clothes?