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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tinkershaw who wrote (21960)	4/1/2000 12:16:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Tinker, I'm gonna continue coming back at ya because I value the expertise you can bring to this thread if you live up to your potential. But I presented it in a G&K framework. You've been following this thread a long, long time. You of all people know what this thread is about. If you need a refresher, kindly visit the first post presented by Frank. I respectfully sumbit that if "G&K framework" refers to the topic of discussion promoted in that first post, you did not sumbit it in the so-called G&K framework. Instead, you submitted it in the context of intent to veer widely from the stated purpose of this folder. Your points are not totally invalid, even those I strongly disagree with. The real issue is that they are simply adding to the confusion going on in the folder. As an outspoken, eloquent person steeped in the tenets of Gorilla Gaming, your "framework" view of applying Gorilla Gaming to industries for which it is not intended is a source of confusion to those who are trying to learn the basics. This thread is devoted to the basics and as a matter of courtesy I implore that you respect and honor that. Thanks in advance. --Mike Buckley

To: tinkershaw who wrote (21960)	4/1/2000 12:30:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 54805

Past disappointments with the stock price largely limited talk of the G&K developments that were going on with RMBS. I won't rehash them, but on the Fool they were recognized and became a constant discussion. Tinker, I want to go on record that I believe you missed the entire point of the discussion that took place here about Rambus. I belive you missed it by such a wide margin that there is no point in attempting to discuss our difference of opinion about that discussion. I also saw the discussion that took place on the Fool folder. This is not meant to appear demeaning, but just as Gorilla Gaming holds to such a strict standard that it imposes "a much tighter set of constraints than govern the bulk of high-tech investors currently in the market," (Page xxiv, RFM) this folder imposes a tighter set of constraints than the Fool folder. That standard may not be right in your and others' minds. But it is what it is. The people who started the folder and worked so hard to maintain adherance to those constraints deserve more respect than to have you as a leader in the Fool folder and at Eric Jhonsa's site blatantly ignore their wishes. As a visible leader in cyberspace, you'll do well to take all of that into consideration. --Mike Buckley

To: tinkershaw who wrote (21960)	4/1/2000 4:46:00 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

>> I specifically remember Q streaming by on CNBC below $100 a few weeks back. I would never knowingly mislead the thread; nor have I ever in any of the thousand + posts that I have posted on the Fool and now here. I'm sure you're sincere in that last statement, but that doesn't belie the fact that you have made inaccurate statements. Please review Yahoo's historical quotes for Qualcomm for the period of 1/3/00 to 3/31/00: chart.yahoo.com Included in the historical information you'll find the low price printed each day, and this factual data verifies that the lowest interday price ytd was 105.625 on 1/28/00. Substituting vague recollections for dd and continuing to argue the point after you have been proven wrong doesn't enhance your credibility on this board, and neither did your earlier post on LEAPS theory, where you were clearly winging it. As a newcomer to our community who is, by your own description, a newcomer to active investing, it would be behoove you to present your opinions less dogmatically and be open to the wisdom of valued threadmates like Lindy Bill and Mike Buckley, who generously share their perspective derived from long and successful investing careers. If you'd like to discuss these comments, which I hope you will take as constructive criticism, further, I'd invite you to visit me on the curmudgeon thread. Until then, I wish you prosperous investing. uf

To: tinkershaw who wrote (21960)	4/1/2000 12:57:00 PM
From: 100cfm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

. Buying Q at the top is not much less risky on a price volatility stand point than was buying ABGX at its recent top (Q, using $105 was 47.5% off of its high, ABGX currently is 66%). Reference to price volatility is a red herring. And whether Q fell 55% or 47.5% the point is the same. Tinker I disagree, the beauty of the gorilla game is not that our beloved gorillas are immune from 40 to 50% corrections, it is that they are immune from staying there, as is not the case for the majority of bios and other non gorillas. Therefore even buying at the top as you call it, is less risky since it has historically always proved to be only temporary. 100