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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Globalstar Telecommunications Limited GSAT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rocket Scientist who wrote (19145)	11/7/2000 5:32:38 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 29987

"Tendentious Trash". From dictionary.com <tendentious adj : having or marked by a strong tendency especially a controversial one; "a tendentious account of recent elections"; "distinguishing between verifiable fact and tendentious assertion" > The point of 'tendentious" is to show a deliberate intent to bias to the point of untruth so that the reality of a situation is distorted to suit the tendentious one's opinions [or desires]. It was unreasonable to extract from WSJ's reporting of Bernard's words that Loral was no longer supporting Globalstar. That's what WSJ did, even though they published Bernard's words and could read them in their own trashy paper, which to me shows either dishonesty or stupidity which would mean WSJ should NOT be held up as being any more reliable as a source of information or analysis than this discussion [Dweeb, Jetter, Bwahahaah, Sword and a few others notwithstanding]. Why should WSJ distort Bernie's meaning? They obviously did. Casual readers extracted the meaning given by WSJ rather than the actual meaning as obvious from Bernie's actual words. So the WSJ failed their readers who were given the wrong impression by WSJ. Now, was that a deliberate misleading of people or just incompetence? No, everyone here is NOT tendentious. Yes, everyone here has a point of view, but most of us are looking for and not reticent about reporting things which conflict with our wishes. We would be tendentious if we brook no opposition. It would not serve our interests to be tendentious because we need to know about anything which could damage our financial interests. Even if we are tendentious, we do not fraudulently hold ourselves out as being objective reporters or a 'respected' publication of the truth, providing unbiased analysis. You are suggesting that journalists become tabloid writers - "Never mind the facts, let's make up something interesting". Okay, that's fair enough if they want to do that. But they will not be held in esteem for long. You really think that the Wall Street Journal is doing that? Well, I guess you are right since they are taking that path. It won't be good for their business. You are indeed correct that WSJ.com misled people into thinking the Great Globalstar Memorial Day Massacre was an illegal scam. That was another indication of their trash journalism attitude to life. It is interesting that I have heard nothing from the SEC and that the Wall Street Journal even duplicated the 'scam', but for financial reward, publishing the advertisement by Irwin Jacobs for a conspiracy of dehypothecation for the express purpose of raising the share price. One could argue that WSJ were fraudulently 'doing in' the competition in dehypothecation promotion by alleging the competition were criminals. leaving the field clear for themselves to get the advertising revenue. I should report them to the SEC!<GG> I don't read WSJ other than if something relevant is reported, such as Jacobs' Patter, the GGMDM, this. It's odd that every time I come across them, they have only a tenuous attachment to reality. That doesn't make me think well of them. I've bought the paper a couple of times when in the USA and find it not much use - I prefer Los Angeles Times or NYTimes. I bought WSJ because I thought it was supposed to be the great financial newspaper. I don't now. Thanksgiving is coming up. A week is a long time in politics, and 3 weeks is a long time in the markets. Shorts better watch out on Thanksgiving. Mqurice