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.

Technology Stocks : Orbital Engine (OE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maverick who wrote (4679)	3/27/2001 10:45:26 AM
From: Maverick	Respond to of 4908

Even if you were telling the truth, you’d be playing time the market. This can be successful, but the odds are strongly against it, and this isn’t considered a credible investing strategy by serious investors. Much the same as making a living playing blackjack. Statistically, you’ll eventually lose. A far better strategy when you’ve found a company with great potential is to buy and hold. All the great investors will tell you this. And IF you’re a long who sold 100% of your position because of bad news, why in the world would you continue to post on a stock you don’t even own? Because you want it to go down further to buy back in? This is a different twist, kind of a short-term short. And without revealing it, it too is deception. If you still claim not to be a short, be sure to call out to everyone when you buy back in. Don’t plan on telling everyone you bought back in at $4.50 AFTER it recovers. Either you’re short, you’re waiting to get back in (and trying to drive the price down further), or you think this company no longer has any potential (no reason to post at all). WHICH IS IT? PLEASE DO TELL. Surely you don’t want to be lumped in with someone who has devoted countless hours every day over a period of years posting this company has horrible management but he continues to hold the stock. That’s a totally bizarre position. The technology won’t “overcome the management”. Betamax already gave that lesson. You have to have BOTH the technology and the management. The links ARE relevant. IF you’re a long! Because those investors need to know what competitors are doing, what issues are affecting the industry, and what issues could affect the stock price, all the way down to news regarding the Euro, which drives the price of the Au dollar. Ignoring all information that doesn’t specifically mention OE is silly. THAT is a head in the sand attitude. And by the way, I think it’s obvious you are the KING of insults. No one else even comes close. Your insult count for just the last week: Rfritz10: 3 insults Rscottau: 2 insults Soonggnoos: 2 insults Glass Is Half Empty: 2 insults Altminv: 1 insult Maverick 1 insult Can you imagine what these numbers are for a whole month?

To: Maverick who wrote (4679)	3/27/2001 8:58:49 PM
From: Dr Mike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4908

Aussie dollar is a disaster. I hadn't been following it as closely the past few weeks; it seems that it has fallen roughly 20% v. US$. In a way it makes me feel better. I can't blame this aspect of the OE ADR fall on Mr Schlunke or the stubborn Detroit auto executives. I take exception to your statement that implies moral superiority to the Greens: "Do these people not have children? Maybe no lungs either?" I have 2 of each, but I believe that intelligent people can disagree about the extent to which the "environment" is something to be kept pristine at all costs. We are in a global warming trend, but the trend began well before modern use of petroleum burning for energy. The vast majority of CO2 production comes from "natural sources," i.e., plant metabolism and decay. The average American, Western European, and Australian breathes air that has no deleterious effect on his health and longevity. The people who breathe filthy air tend to live in 3rd world cities where there are more important concerns, such as avoiding starvation or dying young from diseases that we consider trivial. Certainly there are exceptions such as Houston or LA on a bad day, but for the vast majority this is a esthetic problem, not life threatening. Cleaning up the "environment" is similar to limiting family size in that it tends to occur in societies where a reasonable level of prosperity has been accomplished by a critical mass of the population. Until then, if I were a poverty stricken resident of Mexico City with 6 kids and a low wage job across town that keeps them from abject starvation, my first priority is not going to be trading my stinking 2 stroke cycle for a shiny new OE equipped Aprilia scooter. Prosperity is a very civilizing force, but societies have to make a mess on their way to prosperity. The US was lucky that we were relatively uncrowded when we were achieving our prosperity, and we had a capitalistic economy that allowed economic progress. Most of the rest of the world has neither of these advantages. OK, I'll get off my soapbox. It was getting boring around here.