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 : Techride -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: truth who wrote (7258)	3/28/2000 10:13:00 PM
From: Blue Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7442

truth, You ought to get your facts straight before going by the name of truth. I think if you look for the truth you will find out the truth is I was the first one to point out the split issue with the figure of 90. Look it up. Did you look it up? Good, now you know the truth, truth. The truth is in my post I was trying to say Mark nailed the top of the trading range and he pretty much did (not the number 90). What he was really asking Russell at the time was 'why buy at these levels?' was my impression and I think time has proved Mark wise (eg: you could of traded the money all this time and bought GNET on the close today). And how can you tell what tomorrow's interview is going to be (abrasive)? You can see the future? Why that's not telling the truth, truth. Get your facts straight truth because you are living a lie going by truth. REAL TRUTH I brought up the split adjusted issue (look it up) I was talking about a trading range in my post (what I've been talking about along with insider selling, look it up) CNBC would not have Russell on if there was not news. The other point you missed is that lawyers often ask questions different than most people. That is why Mark will seem abrasive vs. an interview done by Liz. And please cut the loyal GNET shareholder bull$hit as you are doing GNET no favors. I am one of the original GNET investors and I don't remember seeing you then. Isn't that the truth? You were not there in 1997? Loyal? From 1997 is as loyal as it gets so don't tell me about loyal or about what I say in my own post. Look up the truth, truth. You just told me about the split adjusted issue I brought up. And look up loyal too before you tell me about it. A loyal shareholder would not insult the person who is going to interview the CEO of the company. It is stupid to do so, that's the truth, truth. BLUE