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 : Oracle Corporation (ORCL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lml who wrote (14149)	7/5/2000 8:29:19 PM
From: Eski	Respond to of 19080

test

To: lml who wrote (14149)	7/5/2000 10:59:14 PM
From: bob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19080

Just posted the writer's opinion.<p> My opinion is that ORCL could have certainly handled the news of Lane's departure better than they did. <p> Btw, to settle the question about missed earnings. ORCL just met estimates the first quarter of 99 and they did tank. I've been in for 5 quarters now and they beat 4 and met on one. Not bad as far as I'm concerned.

To: lml who wrote (14149)	7/6/2000 4:25:39 AM
From: pafsanias	Respond to of 19080

lml, I know exactly what you mean. The disturbing trend of speculative, non-objective reporting on the web is rising. These days, it is common for a writer (who is usually uninformed) to misrepresent the facts by delivering biased and often negative conjecture. Unfortunately, this practice is becoming the norm rather than the ugly exception. It is up to us, the investors, to wade through the morass of lies to get to the truth. It is also our responsibility to take action. Write letters to the editors of these online publications. Complain to the SEC (this is, after all, a form of stock manipulation). I think with enough negative feedback this carelessness will stop. Don't mean to pontificate -- just want to let you know that I'm also aware of this troubling trend.

To: lml who wrote (14149)	7/6/2000 11:09:38 AM
From: Hardly B. Solipsist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19080

It was a stupid article, but I can't say that it's any worse than things I see in newspapers, or worse than the entire text of Newsweek or Time. If I had to guess, I'd say that Lane decided that he was too rich to work that hard anymore. At the last conference call he said something about being gone 50+ days in the quarter and he has two kids under 2 years of age. I can imagine how much his family liked that. (I'm sure he traveled much more comfortably than I do, but gone is still gone.) I probably will retire before I get $2B. The first one is the hardest, I'm told...