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 : Globalstar Memorial Day Massacre -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (95)	5/11/2000 5:58:00 PM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543

Hypothetical question Imagine a person who went to a party and was asked about his favorite stock and people gathered around him to hear his opinion because they think it is valuable. And then, he suggests how holders of a favorite stock can avoid the shorters to use their shares. If a WSJ journalist was in the party and put it in the gossip column on WSJ, who would be responsible for affecting the stock more, the person who spoke at a small gathering or the journalist who is reporting on it? Arun

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (95)	5/11/2000 6:02:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543

Thanks Jon. I guess the WSJ is happy to run "short busters club" for Ray Dirks. Meanwhile, here's my first email from me to Carrie Lee [if that is her real name and not just a chat room screen name] following her request for me to phone her. I'm quite suspicious of media people, for good reason as you can see by her saying I'm [may be] manipulating a stock illegally trying to hurt investors. Which is simply untrue and I think defamatory. She [the WSJ] seem to have ignored me saying who I was etc preferring to cast doubt on me being me and implying some dishonesty in my name. Sheesh... -------------------------------------------------------- Carrie, you can quote me from the GGMDM stream. That way, we can be sure that quotes will be actually correct. My experience of news media is that they invariably get it wrong [or at least substantially distorted]. It's pretty much self-explanatory anyway. Message 13668461 Just by way of background, I'm from New Zealand, Maurice Winn is my name, I'm 51, with 4 young-adult offspring and have followed QUALCOMM [and Globalstar] since 1991 when happening to meet an engineer who was doing field trials in San Diego. Our son, Tarken, also posts on SI occasionally and has a couple of Web businesses eigokyoshitsu.com snowadventures.co.nz [you need to know Japanese and have your puter Japanese enabled] The first teaches Engrish to Japanese school pupils and the second is a snowboarding tour business he runs with a friend. You can read the other Globalstar thread and a couple of the QUALCOMM threads, and Nokia, where any number of my posts [long and ranting] are available to you to quote from. Keep in mind much of what I write is satire, ironical, sarcastic, or tongue-in-cheek and intended to provoke thought and discussion rather than just be 'my opinion'. So when you read about 'great gender' or 'Super DNA' I'm being sarcastic about women being treated as special entities who deserve preferential government treatment or having to be hired in a certain proportion. The Super DNA comments are related to the absurdity of treating racial groups as 'entities'. They are not. The human genome is one great big muddle and to give government favours by 'race' is stupid and damaging to the people who are intended to be helped [the rich ones get the contracts and jobs, not the poor ones]. I'm not some crazed sexist racist South Pacific maniac who needs a separated corpus collosum........[Ed: Ooops, I notice collosum should be colossum - so, cut my brain in two!! At least I can say 'Engrish' correctly - albeit with an accent according to some] Anyway, take a look around the threads. I'm sure you'll come up with something. The WSJ is not in the good books around SI since they seemed to have a vendetta against QUALCOMM [do a search on 'Jacobs Patter' for example] and were proven wrong by the wild success of CDMA in general and QUALCOMM in particular. The same will happen with Globalstar. I imagine that you [or somebody] in the WSJ might think the GGMDM is a naive attempt to rescue a failing business. Globalstar won't fail. It will be worth $1000 [excluding splits] by 2010 [I actually think sooner]. The technology is simply excellent. The issue is for Service Providers to get 'the sweet spot' in minute pricing. Telecom services are highly price-elastic = you cut the price to the right level and demand explodes. The service providers are just now rolling out service. Verizon for example is just now hiring sales managers in the USA. The GGMDM is mostly some fun, also to satisfy curiosity about 'short squeezes' [check the Globalstar short % which is very high] and it won't hurt shareholders to see their stock at a higher price and it will help Globalstar in funding. This dehypothecation [my favourite new word] will be fun. Only 5 or 6 days until it's too late for all shorts to cover. Maurice ----------------------------------------------------------