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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (2530)	3/23/2001 4:25:14 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

This, was, by far, the most out of context post of the lot.... I never had an intention of disclosing a position...but I will give you an idea, since it seems to be the only thing you want to know. I own AOL, CNXT, CPQ, GE and ORCL. I have lost money on only CNXT, which was a purchase I was unsure of even as I made it. I haven't sold it because it keeps me humble. All others, I am ahead on by a wide margin or have taken my initial capital out of already. At any rate, I remain a LTBH. As for anything else you'd like to know, I personally say up yours. Your attack on me at the end of this post is unwarranted and, like everything else, purely out of context. If you think what I post is drivel, why invite me into your thread to begin with? All of your posts have been based on qualitative statements. You have yet to post anything with a real economic basis...information from housing/unemployment/inflation/interest rates. Primarily because there is little there to support your belief. Qualitative judgements are easy to make if you rely on what people say. You claim that we shouldn't rely on CNBC drivel. Yet every single one of your posts included statements from Buffet, Greenspan, or somebody from whom CNBC derives their drivel. That would essentially make you a shill for them. Up to now, I've been courteous, I haven't attacked your statements as worthless or drivel. Why you felt the need to do so is beyond me. I'm sorry you feel bad about your non-Wintel purchase. I don't know why you have the problems you do with it. I never had any, nor does anyone else I know with an Apple product. I have always been happy with the purchase and laugh at the number of times the wintellian have to reboot and lose files due to a crash. I'm glad you found it so easy to respond. Upon reading the entire response, I once again learned why you found it so easy. Because nothing is ever in context with you. 1. you take things far too literally whereas I am a little looser with the language than lawyers prefer. Therefore, I may say "there is no evidence" when in fact I mean "there is little evidence". A mere detail, but one you would pick upon as a complete flaw in an argument. This, of course, is wrong. 2. You take one point and spin an argument you think I made, then take another point - knowing it is exactly the point I made - and claim I am inconsistent. This, again, is poor judgement on your part. While you seem to be backing me into a corner...I am merely confused by the point you're trying to make because I can barely understand your language. 3. you seem to love to focus on the psychological state quite a bit....and that is the crux of your argument anyway. Well, my psychological state is fine. I am not upset by the collapse of the market in any way because I had a good deal of cash on the side. I am in a solid financial position, and I have no worries when it comes to meeting my bills for the next year. That's pretty much all I've ever been concerned about, even during the bull...so I'm not changing my outlook. I've railed against the con game that was played, but not because I was hurt. I've railed against it because I resent the way a number of investment bankers and 25 year old whiz kids have found a way to siphon funds from granny into their pockets and not feel bad about it. Still, as much as it was a con game, and that con seems to be at an end....I don't see any long term deleterious effects. Except to say that granny won't be investing anytime soon, which I'm sure has the brokerage firms more than a little pissed at this point. I had fun. When you were being nice, it was a good time. As soon as you decided to treat me like the village idiot (disclosure, since you are so fond of it - I have an IQ of 140) and look upon my opinions as so sad...I felt it was time to ignore you. I rarely use this function. I have used it 2 times in 4 years. You are the third. It's a shame, really, because I was beginning to think you were finally going to give me real evidence of your beliefs....and yet you came so tantalizing close only to fail. CYA, good luck and when I'm busted (not likely), I'll unignore you and tell you how damn smart you were and how stupid I was and I wish I'd listened to you...because I have determined that this is all you want me to do anyway.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (2530)	3/23/2001 4:29:11 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

One last thing before I ignore you...you use TICE as your gauge???? This guy has been calling the top of the market for 5 years. Now that he's right, he has a stranglehold on the truth? Look, I've been saying the bubble is a bubble from the start, but I'm not nutty enough to think that because the bubble finally burst that this means the whole thing is over. BTW, I seem to remember alot of people saying the same thing after the crash in 1987. It took almost no time to come back from that. I'm not implying the NAZ is going to snap back as quickly as the DOW did after the 87 crash....but to think that this was so stunning and overwhelming is really a bit much, even for a qualititatively challenged person such as yourself.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (2530)	3/25/2001 1:08:25 PM
From: The Flying Crane	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Jay, From a 3rd party's perspective who happened to come upon this thread, may I offer my view of why MeDroggies was so upset with this post of yours that he finally put you on ignore? Before I begin, I like to say that I'm not arguing for either side but simply to vocal out what I observed. Of course, what I observed may be tainted by my own personal experience and background. The way I see this, your debate between MeDroogies were simply a matter of two headstrong egos butting head with each other. And each with his own unique style of debating- one is sporting, and the other is very serious! Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a strong ego since this is, IMHO, a hallmark of an intellectual. Both of you argued "beautifully" in your own way. Unfortunately, both of you also carry a chip on the shoulder. IMHO, "Drivel" was not the word that finally pissed MeDroogies off, it was the whole manner of your response that pissed him off. Notice some of your counterpoints came with a touch of belittling: "You got that backward and reversed. You make it too easy for me to respond. Not good enough So? It does not follow that No? What do you call this drivel …" And to rub salt into the wound.... "Thanks for making it easy for me to respond so quickly." Let me see if I can use an analogy to describe what I observed... Once upon a time there was a proud Frenchman who challenged a proud Roman citizen to a duel. Both would pick their own preferred weapon. Naturally, the Frenchman would pick an epee (use for fencing) and the Roman citizen a standard issue of a Roman sword. Now, both were very skilled in their own martial skill. The Roman would hack with such strength that anyone who didn't know any better would succumb to such blow. The Frenchman, however, was quick and nimble in his movement and his handling of the epee. No matter how hard the Roman hacked his sword, the Frenchman always manage to side-step ahead. Their duel began with a friendly overtone until both parties began to get tired of the fighting that seemed to get nowhere. However, in the final hour, the Frenchman began to tease the Roman citizen with his skill of handling the epee. He began to make the Roman citizen feeling like a fool. Now, the Roman citizen was a very proud gentleman and his bloodline was impeccable. And in one instance, the Frenchman even poked his epee on the Roman citizen's behind (divel?). And to end this frustrating duel, the Frenchman thanked the Roman citizen for making this duel an "easy affair" for him. No less, this remark dealt a final blow to the Roman citizen's pride (or in Roman's terminology- his dignitas). Afterward, the Roman citizen, to his chagrin, refused to deal with the Frenchman ever again! Now, I'm not saying the Roman citizen was without fault, after all, his arrogance was a little hard to swallow as well. Without playing side, I'm just trying to tell you, from my perspective, that "drivel" was not the culprit here. But then, what do I know! Just a 2 cents from an ignorant visitor... However, I sense that BOTH of you agree on one thing which is all that counted- that one must be careful in this current market condition. Cheers!