To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (2475 ) 11/9/2000 1:15:23 AM From: Rich Wolf Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 3376 I'm amazed that you chose to speak in complete sentences this time. Your proclivity for slang persists, however. Fact: when Paul Allen and Worldcom decided to invest $600M to build a network, they knew how far the money would go, and how long it would take. Nothing has changed since then. The money they invested is paying for the hardware and manpower to install it. Fact: the signing on of users of this network, which is perhaps 1/3 complete (unofficially, e.g., you *can* access the partially completed network in cities such as Los Angeles), was expected to occur over a 1-3 year period from the commencement of the build, depending upon how many users you consider your threshold. Fact: the reselling of the service is only beginning in force over the next two quarters. No one expects to see larger sub numbers until March's announcement. This was known all along. Fact: the 'cash burn' is complete FUD here, since once they stop putting in the infrastructure, it drops dramatically. Since they are relying on other resellers, the SG&A won't pop up as much for typical carriers either. Fact: PA raised more than enough cash from his recent sales of *other* wireless investments, to take MCOM all the way through phase III rollout. Given his having chosen to commence the build, and with no reason for him to stop half-way, presumably you are suggesting that his original investment was ill-conceived. Why do I think he has analyzed the situation more than you have? That he knows exactly the costs involved and the potential profits of the final enterprise? Have you any evidence whatsoever that once completed, and properly priced and marketed, that this network cannot easily become the next AOL in terms of subscriber growth? That is the proper paradigm to consider. There is ABSOLUTELY NO COMPETITION even visible on the horizon for what Metricom is beginning to offer now. None. Period. Nada. Your 'analysis' of the market, technology, business model, and yes, the financing issues, is null and void. Have you anything substantive to offer in the way of analysis? I didn't think so. You and the shorts you front for only manipulate prices of stocks during moments of weakness. Fine, I recognize the presence and profit thereby as well. You don't bother me. However, your half-truths and misrepresentations do a disservice to other investors. Your intent is clearly to mislead. Careful with your choice of words, unless you are looking for another lawsuit to hit you upside the head.