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 : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (29838)	10/19/2000 1:27:58 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<I hope you won't find this offensive, but the post you linked as a "primer" on Globalstar's prospects is a vacuous, fact-deficient puff piece.> Sorry, disagree. In fact ROFLMAO that you would label that post such with all the crap posted on these boards... really ROFLMAO. That's O.K. everyone can decide for themselves. < The people who really know what is going on with Globalstar are Valueman, RocketScientist, and Maurice Winn, probably others but those are the ones I give most credence to.> Agreed, in fact Valueman was steadfast in his negativity while the stock was 'hot'... probably when Soros was 'puffing in. BTW I believe if you ask any of you're above choices they will think highly of the poster I highlighted. He was also instrumental in helping many QCOM watchers into believers WAY before the blow up... as were the posters you sighted I believe. KyrosL... right he's the one... thanks. < For what it's worth, my take on Globalstar is that the chances that it will file bankruptcy are very high, and that is based on hard, cold financial calculations that very intelligent posters on the thread have done.> Yes, the thread is excellent, that's why I linked over there. And as to bankruptcy, that's why I'm buying the bonds. < I think theprospects for a complex project like Globalstar or Teledesic to make enough money to survive are poor.> We disagree on this point. DAK