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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jambo-bwana who wrote (15665)	11/13/2000 7:22:59 PM
From: Cactus Jack	Respond to of 65232

Jambo, People send private messages for a variety of reasons, which may have nothing to do with whether their sentiments would have been well-received. Some people may not wish to express any public opinions whatsoever. Others express opinions on anything and everything publicly. Depends upon the individual sending the message. jpgill

To: jambo-bwana who wrote (15665)	11/13/2000 7:23:03 PM
From: KHS	Respond to of 65232

Andrea Mitchell in an interview asked a suggestive question stating the markets are being hurt by this election issue. I was worried it was really being hurt by the street's perception of a slowing economy. She does sleep with Alan Greenspan!!! Alan must not be worried about the economy. I bet he goes neutral Wednesday. Keith

To: jambo-bwana who wrote (15665)	11/13/2000 7:28:02 PM
From: Voltaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

You are probably right in everything you said - I don't have time nor the patience to go through the Dem & Rep debate type process. Here is what is going to happen - If I feel the thread is being disrupted, I'm going to have no dialog, just inform the IRRITANTS they are about to be Suspended, if it doesn't stop, send them to the wood shed for a few days. It is probably not Democratic, Fair or Ethical and I am sure it can be contested in some court, and I am also sure it will run some folks off but at least the ones that remain will have a better atmosphere for giving equitable opinions and ideas. Law West of the Pecos Judge Roy Voltaire Bean

To: jambo-bwana who wrote (15665)	11/13/2000 7:43:22 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Respond to of 65232

JB, as one who (thankfully) wasn't been involved in the food fight, I take exception to the following: Nichols sought to find out why there was a double standard being applied to Keith versus others, including Dealer, who is obviously part of the "in" crowd. I don't accept that spin given the following base characterization, which Nichols repeated several times: dealie has transformed what used to be a forum to exchange ideas into her own version of her "petty little stupid world." Since Voltaire's Porch is intended to be the cyber-recreation of a southern porch, and Dealie is the hostess (threadmaster) who toils selflessly seeing to the comfort of her guests by serving tea (news) and cookies (aftermarket quotes), it was unbearably rude for Nichols to attack her in such a personal manner. It wasn't too bright, either, since Dealie has control of the <kill> button. jmho, uf

To: jambo-bwana who wrote (15665)	11/13/2000 7:49:26 PM
From: candide-	Respond to of 65232

jambo-bwana banning themself, banning themself, oh no, not with the in crowd, not with the in crowd...won't come back until poo-poo people are allowed back, won't come back until poo-poo people are allowed back...who cares, who care?????? c-

To: jambo-bwana who wrote (15665)	11/13/2000 8:51:49 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 65232

Jambo-bwana, It's been a long time since I've posted here, but I've been reading this thread since it began. The post you made (to which I'm responding) had a number of good points, not the least of which was that there is a rather large group of SI members who regard what has been happening on this thread with a growing sense of concern, and yet have not been willing to speak up. I've been one of them, for a number of reasons. First, as a thread leader myself, I've been subjected to personal attack and an attempted coup, and I wanted to couch my comments in a manner free of that kind of unproductive nastiness. Second, I've noticed how critical comments about some of the investment decisions here have been met with a wall of negativity and now, outright banning. Frankly, like a motorist passing by an accident, I've slowed down but driven past. All that said, I want to share my thoughts with you all because I'm concerned that the losses many of you have suffered will continue to mount unless you do something to protect yourselves. In my opinion, we're at the end of a long bull market, in a time filled with worldwide economic and political uncertainty. The Nasdaq has been in a distinct downtrend for months now. The days of buying stocks, even solid tech stocks, and holding them while they double and triple in a matter of months is gone. If we're interested in preserving our savings, we should be adjusting our investing strategies toward conservation, not speculation. There are a lot of things about the stock market that I don't understand (like FA <g>), but I do understand options very well, as I trade them full time. Options, unlike equities, have both volatility and time factors built into their pricing. In a downtrending market, even far-out-in -time calls will whither, as their premiums reflect the downtrend in the price of the stock. And calls bought in times of high volatility (like now, when the VIX is high) will deflate precipitously as the market calms down and resumes its normal volatility. Buying far-out-in-time calls on stocks in downtrends during times of high volatility is a recipe for financial disaster. No matter how promising the company's technology, if the market is downtrending, the stock will follow. I attended a seminar recently in which they illustrated this with the following metaphor: picture a helium-filled balloon in an elevator car that is going down. When released, the balloon will rise and bump against the ceiling. But the car is descending, so it takes the balloon down with it as well. Please protect yourselves and your savings. And enjoy each other. Friends are far more valuable than money.

To: jambo-bwana who wrote (15665)	11/13/2000 9:47:53 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 65232

>>"Keith had become an irritant to the "in" crowd on the porch. Rose committed the "sin" of being supportive of Keith. Nichols sought to find out why there was a double standard being applied to Keith versus others, including Dealer, who is obviously part of the "in" crowd. So each of them were banned in turn. Keith's comments about Jim were out of line - but then, so were Jim's remarks about Keith. For anyone who says that the language used was intemperate, perhaps it was but then even a cursory examination of some of the posts during the past few weeks would demonstrate that there was plenty of that by several posters who were not taken to task."<< That is a revisionist view of events. No if's and's or butt's about it. Bottom line, they each got personal more than once. The porch will tolerate a lot. Heated debates & many disagreements will go on until those folks are blue in the face on the porch. We have a problem when it becomes personal. Will the porch uniformly apply its' standards regarding moderating people? I doubt it. Too many variables. Will it be arbitrary & capricious? I seriously doubt it. Look how out of control it got here before any action was taken. Is it necessary? ABSOLUTELY! IMVHO, the community is more important than a select few who want to cross the line with impunity. If we do not impose some minimum level of standard, the porch is doomed to become a cesspool. Look at YAHOO if you doubt it can happen. >>"Now to find another home on SI!"<< Me thinks that will be your loss. I hope you reconsider. The reality is that we are a wonderful, intelligent & caring group on the whole. Regards, Ö¿Ö Tim P.S. Regarding PM's Keith still does not have the silent majority locked up. I know that for a fact. Perhaps these folks are split in their opinions as proportionately as those who post?

To: jambo-bwana who wrote (15665)	11/14/2000 8:28:50 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 65232

Message boards in cyberspace are nothing but places for people to gather, share information, and express their opinions. The only "danger" a moderated message board presents to anyone or anything is that some people (many, a few, or all) may ultimately decide NOT to gather there to share information and express their opinions. Really. That's the only danger. That's the worst that can happen: people may decide to gravitate to another place. And the world is full of places. It's not a sinister or threatening or oppressive situation at all. Really. It just isn't. Bland@bettingtherewillalwaysbeplentyofpeoplehappytospendafewhoursontheporch.com