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 : Aware, Inc. - Hot or cold IPO? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill F. who wrote (7685)	2/21/2000 10:51:00 AM
From: Jess Beltz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9236

Bill, (1) If you thought Cymer was going to go down because of the problems in Asia, why didn't you say so at the time, in the interview? I suppose it is possible that you did make these points to the editors at Barrons, and they simply chose not to print them, but rather they printed these other things, none of which proved to be true, either at the time or afterwards (with the possible exception of the inventory oversupply, which I simply do not know about.) It was only marginally possible that Lamda whatever would eventually be a competitor. There simply were a lot of inuendo comments going on all over about the stock, which received attention in "the interview", and not a peep about the shifting market dynamics at the time. I remember the Montgomery Securities downgrade on the heels of the PR disaster in September wherein Cymer announced they had had an order pushout but didn't want to comment. Montgomery Securities perhaps did downgrade the stock for the right reasons. Your comments are different. The article is there for all to see, and there's not one mention of the linkage between Asia and the semi equipment manufacturers. The comment about Cymer's business simply drying up speaks for itself. By the way, the stuff that you talk about in the reply WAS known to everyone of us on the Cymer thread at the time. (2) Let me apologize for insinuating that you timed your comments to take advantage of a sector that was (a) heavily shorted at the time and (b) falling in price/valuations. I'm sure you did no such thing. Let me also say that I personally do not (a) think short sellers manipulate the prices of stocks, or (b) think that they are evil people. They simply choose to buy low/sell high in the reverse order of investors who go long. Factual information is just as important to them as it is to people who hold long positions. Good luck with your investing Bill. Jess.

To: Bill F. who wrote (7685)	2/22/2000 1:46:00 AM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9236

May I make a request here? Please take this crap elsewhere. Bill I'm sorry if it sounds rude, but I know of no one who has much respect for you or your methods. To clog up this thread with the technical argument of why or how you were edited doesn't change the point Jess has made. Now Jess, you've made your point and aren't going to win a concession from Bill. So I suggest we get back to more of the meaningful DSL subject this thread is all about. Thank you both and good luck, Scrapps