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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave who wrote (57568)	4/21/2001 4:46:06 PM
From: Joseph Pareti	Respond to of 74651

sabotage is defined in the dictionary as "malicious damage or destruction especially by dissatisfied workmen or hostile agents". Yes, Fleckenstein has been consistent, a CONSISTENT FOOL THAT STARTED SHORTING INTEL in the mid90's. No wonder he might have been "dissatisfied " :-) Perhaps you don't grasp the difference, but the junk Meeker was pushing all along ain't WINTEL, nor would have the market collapsed because of WINTEL valuation. This was one of my favorites at the time members.home.net change a few terms, edit in BF's photo and it still holds true. Got the idea ?

To: Dave who wrote (57568)	4/22/2001 2:03:11 AM
From: _scar_face_	Respond to of 74651

Good grief. <<Fleckenstein has not changed his tune. He has continued to tell it like it is.>> Like who did during the bull__ [fill in the blank]?....simply amazing the 1's who will believe...what they want to believe ----- now. Do yourself a favor, dont fall for others beliefs.

To: Dave who wrote (57568)	4/22/2001 4:34:37 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

Fleckenstein has not changed his tune. Why would he change his tune? He is running a fund that is supposed to be short. People put money into funds like his in order to give themselves a hedge against their long mutual funds or stock holdings (especially the super rich). If the market went down in a big way and his fund was mostly long, there would be a lot of ticked off unit holders. Therefore, he has to focussed on shorting no matter what the levels of the market. Same applies to David Tice's Bear Fund. Is this not obvious to everyone?