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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pat mudge who wrote (4161)	5/9/2000 8:43:00 AM
From: mts362	Respond to of 5853

Pat Mudge- How much space did they have when you visited the company? How many workers? What was the date of your visit? MTS

To: pat mudge who wrote (4161)	5/9/2000 8:53:00 PM
From: voop	Respond to of 5853

Hi pat He is a futurist :) Voop

To: pat mudge who wrote (4161)	5/10/2000 1:53:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 5853

Pat, Just observing, but noticed you manage to imply the unsaid, once again. If YOU want to apply the word "operational", fine...but don't lead folks to suspect GILDER used that word. He didn't. You make look like lies, that which simply is not. Recently here, you've rounded a .9 down to zero- and if that's a small point, just the same it's a significant percentage looking at 10.9, and a choice you likely must have made willy nilly. You'd like us to take that as a sign of integrity? But worse, you ignored the most recent Q results(65% growth from prior Q) which doubled the 10 mil rev. figure you offered and then some. You fail to note in your summations bolded sentences that you compared 6 months of revs to the whole company history of loses.(leaving out the recent three months which doubled the prior six months revs as noted above). You deny the extent of customer service reported in your own source material with a hence false statement of your own indicating it was less than what was reported. This is the tip of the misleading iceberg in your reporting here, IMO, and then you've spouted about your respect for integrity, and I, for one, am not buying it. Intelligent readers know what you do not. You can't assume what Gilder didn't say. He didn't say "operational." You CAN assume they have appropriated that space for reasons Gilder adequately explained. He's attempting to mislead noone..but it's clear that your ARE more than willing to do so, IMO. Did you supply Pluvia and/or Anthony with your "research" on Terayon...thus instigating their short reco's? This deserves a plain answer. Did you review Pluvia's plainly false and fraudulent research report on Terayon before he posted it? Just a question. Ya know, he can't claim a company doesn't offer a Docsis certified product for sale when in does, and still stay within the law. That's a criminal act. If you did review that, you should be more careful. Heck, IMO, I KNOW you should be more careful, in any event- I've had you claim I myself said what I did not, and then call me a liar for truthfully denying having said it. There is no justificaiton. I'm sorry everyone, but this "reporting" does taunt me, and is plainly reeediculous, IMO. Dan B