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: pater tenebrarum who wrote (67265)	2/13/2001 2:13:03 PM
From: sammaster	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

u just playing the techs or do u got any of the cyclicals in your sights? seems like mmm aa cat are layups in a recession whereas the consumer noncyclicals may get a bid in flight to "safety" initially(as if they havent already) if the old economy "blue chips" break i would expect the cyclicals to go first and then later on the noncyclicals so it gives 3 opps to put ...tech then cycliclas then noncyclicals... maybe by then there will be techs cheap enuf for calls -g- samir

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (67265)	2/13/2001 2:18:49 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

on Yahoo --- tee hee hee >> Never thought we'd hear ourselves saying this, but it might have been better for the market if Alan Greenspan continued to speak... That's because the market was doing just fine while he was on the hotseat, but soon after his testimony concluded, the market saw an increase in selling efforts... The retreat has been expedited by program trading and a deterioration in the tech sector...<<<

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (67265)	2/13/2001 2:41:10 PM
From: AllansAlias	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 436258

Early days yet, but yup, dipsters getting whacked. I have no intention of gloating or what have you, but one has to wonder how many times they will buy the dip and get burned before they figure out that they should be fading rallies until proven wrong. I know we say that eradicating this behaviour will take a terrible wipe-out, but this sort of stubborness in the face of compelling odds really intrigues me. On one of the more popular threads on SI, a TA-oriented thread, the discussion is nearly always biased to look upward. One would think there would be less bias on such a thread. Very odd.