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 : Terayon - S CDMA player (TERN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (275)	2/10/2000 2:20:00 PM
From: Dennis O'Bell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1658

Re Gilder: Being a guru, like running a 3 star restaurant, is a performing art and they're only as good as their latest performance :-) Still, I finally subscribed last summer to find out what the noise was about and have to give him credit for having a real talent as a popularizer, even if his newsletter has a kind of mystical faith component. As an engineer, I'm more at home in refereed technical journal articles with references than in the subjective world of stock picking, let alone telecosmic revival meetings. To put this in my perspective, if he were discussing biotech, I would have no interest because I would not be capable of judging what he talks about. It's precisely that I do understand the technology he discusses that makes his monthly "distillation" interesting. Back to the subject of Terayon - my first impression on hearing of what they were doing was that they'd found a way of using CDMA to combat the (usually weak) nonlinearities in the cable plant. I don't know why, but it seemed like that would be a cool idea. But now that I'm learning more, I'm not so sure it works better than other schemes :-(

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (275)	2/10/2000 2:22:00 PM
From: Dooker	Respond to of 1658

Gilder doesn't have a PhD in Physics, but I'd rather get my emerging technology analysis from someone who has understanding of business and markets. PhD's picking emerging successful companies is quite a long shot. By the way, Gilder is humble and does not play the "hot-shot stock-picking scamster" at all. He's a remarkable man with many interests.

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (275)	2/10/2000 10:02:00 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 1658

How many brainiacs make a fortune, really? Gilder is able to put it all together. He understands the technology and has a sense of what's economically practical. Not many scholars can claim this ability. Regards, LoF PS. My Gilder newsletter has paid for itself in spades...

To: Bernard Levy who wrote (275)	2/10/2000 10:06:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1658

Bernard, With all due respect, that doesn't change the fact that CSteadman is correct. A little DD on my part and I'd soon have uncovered the presence of Mr. Green's book, along with(no doubt) Mr. Gilders tout of same on his website, myself. I'm surprised you've said what you've said here, but I'm not at all surprised Mr. Gilder had already acknowledged Paul Green(and likely more thoroughly than we've documented here). You wrote, "Another slightly irritating aspect of George Gilder's reports is that he rarely acknowledges original material that he draws from. He has been right on in the area of optical networking, but his inspiration can be found in Paul Green's papers." You continued with a little Bio. on Green and pointed to his(here I defer to your recollection), shall we say- Dumb Pipe Papers?- as if you were enlightening those from whom Mr. Gilder had hidden the truth. Good Grief man! How wrong can you be before you just come out and say "whoops, sorry!?" I accept that George G irritates you and that your irritation is worthy stuff, but please don't manufacture things out of whole cloth, slighting quite wrongly the writings, nature, and ego of a man, Achh...! It wasn't pretty to see when you replied: "Gilder may be mentioning green's book, but there are two survey papers in the mid 90's where Green was talking about dumb networks, the idea taken up by Gilder afterwards." "But", schmut! I suspect he could reference every paper he ever read, every conversation/interview he ever had, complete with specific individual recaps of each, in every single monthly GTR he ever passes out, and you'd still speak of the way he "seldom"(bg) gives anyone else any credit. It's just silly, IMO. Anyone can count the name drops and credits he offers and find them "abundant," which is of course, a matter of critical importance to George, as you may not realize. BG I'm compelled to add that for all we know- Paul Green, George Gilder, and numerous possible others had discussed(with whomever) the "dumb pipes" concept prior to the writing of Green's papers, which you now cite as though their existence pointed to some Gilder shortcoming. If nothing else, this exercise points out that he never was alone in his thinking, and never had a notion to pretend to be. He picked up a sword and he's been honest about it(even when he is wrong). Big whoop, eh? Between the original clearly false "Green" post, and this latest suspicious reply, it begins to look as if you are GREEN indeed. Envious perhaps Bernard? VBG,JMHO Freedom works, Dan B