<<Jay, Jay....Jay Jay:>>
Yes? Good morning.
<<All I am trying to tell you is that posts which actually have content or are incisive or well meaning are worthwhile. Others, with the possible exception of some which are humorous or have curiosity, are not.>>
And you are the judge of merit?
<<We are not Yahoo, after all.>>
Statement of the blindingly obvious.
<<With that in mind, your statement, "The situation will become a lot sillier before the answer to your counter-intuitive question is clear. Issue, when the answer is clear, where will the indices be at?" seems at best inarticulate. [I would not be so indelicate as to mention that it contains a dangling preposition, the etymological sign of the disorganized mind. >>
Engagement at the lowest level (Oops, a fragment here). My writing style only has to please one person in the world – Jay Chen.
<<First, far from being "counter-intuitive" MeDroogies observation is a valid and instructive one.>>
Organize your mind and realize the “counter-intuitive” was used by the author himself. I happen to think the question should be blindingly obvious to the most casual of passing observers.
<<His point, if he will allow me is the observation, that if Oracle is now pervasive, where does growth come from.
You statement: "Issue, when the answer is clear, where will the indices be at?"
not only does not answer that question, but evidences no indication you understand the question. ("Indeces" is defined as the plural of index)>>
Indeces? I meant what I wrote, indices, as in Nasdaq, DJI, and S&P500. What do you mean? Getting back to the point you failed to grasp … when the answer to MeDroogies’s question is clear, folks may be, just maybe deep under water, as opposed to simply gurgling downward.
<<The answer, if I may, is that software is the embodiment of the combination of the logical and the physical process to find an answer.
Simply put, there is no logical limitation on the ability to increase the value of a software product, if the developer continues to improve the product, to reach out to include. Ellison knows this. That is the embodiment of 9i/11i.
Maybe that is what he knows that you don't.>>
Please communicate your thoughts to Larry. Last time I checked, the man is selling his own shares, and he presumably knows he is right and cautious to sell.
<<Oracle's five year increase in year to year profitability is 70% per year; the 3 year increase is 98%, the one year increase is 383%.
Gates knows this he calls it "embrace and extend".>>
Yes, and so what? I already got my share of gains from ORCL. Time to move on (Oops, did it again).
<<You say:"When the jungle's floor thumps, is it always wise to stick around to find out the answer first hand?"
You must be in a hurry, ...so many threads, so little time? I assume you meant, it is NOT always wise to stick around.>>
Correct, finally.
<<This game is played by knowing your own hand. Not listening to the sound of others.>>
And so my writing must be crushed and ground into the ground. What is it about my basic message of caution you are not happy with?
<<Besides, a basic understanding of the Tax laws is necessary or you will get killed.>>
I understand tax is a frictional cost of commerce and investment in the US. In Hong Kong, where we have freedom, we are spared this unnecessary friction. In the US, where you have much lawyers and defined rights, a construct of taxes has been devised by the finest legal minds. I do not know whether it is better to be killed by taxes, ORCL, CSCO. or legal minds. Killed means death, the last time I checked with my legal helpers.
<<To do otherwise is to join that heard mentality you mentioned (quoted proudly), in another post.>>
You meant herd, right. Let us not engage each other at this petty level. Our respective education should enable us to rise above this sort of unproductive behavior and puzzle out the issues so that no one is left poorer.
I admit I have fun on the threads, but I am certainly not mean, and even more certainly, do not mean to be mean. I merely like to engage folks in conversation.
<<Investing is not really a "game". A game depends on chance. Successful investing in the long run is based on logical understanding, don't you agree??>>
No and yes. My game is chess, and investing. Chance has nothing to do with the former, and little to do with the latter. My sport is scuba diving, which is based on chance to a certain extent.
Chance is dangerous when hubris not controlled. This thought applies to chess and investing, and not surprisingly, to scuba diving. And, yes, logical understanding by all means.
Chugs, Jay
P.S. Just for the evidence trail ...
Message 15436417 |
