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 (125171)	5/17/2001 12:04:28 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>>But who's fault was it for believing in his "new era"? He didn't take advantage of anyone. If they blindly followed his ideas and lost that's their problem. The stock market isn't a game. People should expect that going into it.<< agreed. i go back to the point that folks want to play the blame game after they screw up. however, one ought to be cautious about what they say - and william was really hyping stuff up. actually, he was just repeating analyst / bubblehead crap. i never believed it and never acted on it even though many were espousing the bs. >>What's wrong with that<< taking glory for successes and running from responsibility when failure hits doesn't seem to equal "ok" in my book. the bottom line is that what we say impacts others. that is a fact. one ought to use reasoned common sense and william didn't. hype, hype, hype. "money is flowing into..." "this company will own the world... just look at the price appreciation." etc. i, too, believe william believe the hype. however, it was irresponsible and, imho, there is no way around that. does he freely admit that his method of gambling was bankrupt even after it blew up in his face? or does he justify it and lay in wait for the big "killing?" >>So? He didn't force anyone to do anything. They chose to follow him at their own risk.<< agreed. however, i don't think their is 100% immunity from misleading people. if you give a guy a gun and he offs himself, it is really all that guys fault, right? in a sense, yeah. but in a sense i think you would feel bad thinking "if only i hadn't given that guy gun..." i exaggerated to make the point that william isn't at fault, but neither should he expect immunity from what amounts to irresponsible bs. btw, i feel the EXACT same re: mary meeker and henry bludgeon - except they are many times more responsible than a william is. but, alas, that doesn't matter to an individual misled into believing a fallacy by william's aggressive stance on being "right." >>Yes, I will not dispute this point. But that doesn't make him a bad person, just a person who made a mistake.<< craig, sounds reasonable. however, i think one mistake he made was to give the impression he knew what he was doing when he didn't and he appears to keep repeating this mistake. the repetition gets old. others have pointed out potentially contradictory staements he has made and wonder if he didn't misrepresent what he was doing while on these threads. i don't follow closely enough to form an opinion.