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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (124954)	5/13/2001 9:43:19 AM
From: re3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

there is a difference between betting successfully on a pending mania and betting on the very long term prospects for the companies you are betting on. which of these two was Mr. H doing , what do you think ?

To: craig crawford who wrote (124954)	5/13/2001 1:13:50 PM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>Tell me which sounds better. I'll tell you what sounds better to me. Following William in 98/99 then shorting all the shit he bought as soon as you knew the mania was ending. Actually that shorting date was the 1st trading day the new millennium began. Although waiting until April 1 2000 would have been PERFECT timing. >Right about the time you run out of chips the Nasdaq hits 5000 and you are bankrupt! The bears who are bankrupt you refer to haven't been around here for a couple of years. Neither are the bulls who kept following William after the party ended. Btw The new economy thread is down to 4. What does that tell you? It tells me winners will always follow winners. Its always been that way.

To: craig crawford who wrote (124954)	5/13/2001 1:39:16 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Craig: I don't care what Bill says in his latest revision of whether he bought and held, or rotated, or lost most of his money, or was only down a little or whatever. You say he got his money out of the market -- fine. That is version 501 of his story and who cares anyway. The real issue is whether Bill is a clever manipulator or just a really dumb guy who eventually believed the most absurd BS and made it his own BS and shared it with this thread. I am in the latter camp. I watched him escalate his BS over time. I watched him deny the way the market was coming apart. I watched him deny that he was ever wrong -- just as I watched him being consistently wrong. One last point. It is hardly a positive reflection on your own insight into the market to assume that you had only two choices -- buy the bubble or short the bubble. There are real companies out there -- thousands of them -- with tradable securities. Bill always claimed to have "a well diversified portflio" -- another sign of his lack of intelligence if you looked at the list of stocks he owned. A person who really did have diverse holdings would be much better off than somebody who got sucked into Bill's mindless little mania binge. Good luck Craig.