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 : COM21 (CMTO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pat mudge who wrote (1794)	2/21/2000 10:13:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2347

Pat, Re: ""Avowed" was your word. " It was the word you made an exceptional issue of. Re: "You're saying your first post was "possibly incorrect?" Was it or wasn't it?" I simply didn't say. I didn't intend to say unless I knew, thank-you. What's kafkaesque is that you didn't get this point the first time, and you proceeded to post a bunch of stuff concerning the issue...disparaging too, IMO. I'm almost sorry I'm still replying. Re: "Incidentally, it's not for you to decide if your credibility's been restored. No one's controlled my mind yet, and you're a long ways from being the first." This implies I've said or intimated what I have not. Reminiscent of "...my words twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools" Re: " Why don't you just admit you posted information you shouldn't have<i/> and make an honest attempt..." That's what I did. Period. How you cannot see that, I don't know! Kafkaesque! Re: " If one post says CherryPicker contributed to earnings and one says you don't know if they did, one is false." That is patently absurd by rules of logic. "If you didn't know, your earlier post is a lie. If you did know, then your disclaimer is a lie." That is as convoluted a short piece of "logic" as I think I could ever imagine. Up to your ears, IMO. Think: reading comprehension. Think LOGIC! Pat, there is a difference between a falsehood and a lie. If I "didn't know", then my earlier post MAY HAVE BEEN MISTAKEN as I said, but it was NOT necessarily a lie, by any streth of LOGIC! This is not the first blatant error in logic you've committed here. I'm sorry you don't get it, but you are way out of line here, IMO. My original statement cannot be a falsehood unless it's shown that Cherrypicker did not add to earnings- REGARDLESS of the corretive statement I made later. Period. Only Negative earnings for cherrypicker can allow it to be false. Do you understand this reality? I, considering the possibility that it WAS false(i.e., that Cherrypicker was a negative earnings venture), "covered my ass" asap, because I felt I couldn't trust my memory. By realizing, and openly telling that I didn't know for sure, I knowingly lost my chance to discover I was right in the first place(in which event I could have kept my mouth shut, you'd be none the wiser, and I wouldn't be READING this particular illogical train of thought from you now), I thus allowed for one of two possibilities. They are: 1)my original statement was false, or 2)It was true- but this certainly doesn't show there was a purposeful lie, in either case! I corrected for the purpose of making it CLEAR I didn't intend to tell a falsehood. If you want to repeat the notion that by the rules of logic one of those two statements MUST be a lie, well, you go right ahead, You are entitled to your opinion, but in mine, you ARE Kafkaesque! ...and in need of a look at the rules of logic. "Saying your sales overtook Com21's doesn't make it so" If TERN's unit sales numbers are a scam, go prove it. My memory says the audited numbers they reported indicate they sold lots more modems in sequential quarters....IF I'm not sorely MISTAKEN here. And If I am mistaken, I'll admit it! LOL! YEEE GADS! RE: "Think there's a chance Gilder's knowledge is equal to yours?" That's odd to hear, considering I was just saying I didn't know the answer to your question. George probably does, don't you think? You are a baddie, twisting words and intent without regard for honesty and fair play, IMO. I will not engage someone who uses your tactics any longer, as it is thoroughly unproductive. Re: DOCSIS invitation and..."The question is, will they fail again? Only time will tell" No, the question in my mind was would you deal with the issue honestly, or keep you vow to refer to it in the misleading way in which no one would ever discover there remains an open invitation into DOCSIS at all. To me, your silence is the wrong answer. RE: "I'll give you a break when you say something honest." I'd like to believe that. Alas..experience dictates I cannot. Dan B