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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (103382)	5/18/2001 8:43:10 PM
From: robnhood	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<<This is probably short covering on top of fears that the Middle East may spiral out of control. >> A snorting baby bull has been hatched---- The reasons will come later-------who cares now what the reasons for the dot.com craze were?

To: KyrosL who wrote (103382)	5/19/2001 9:36:09 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I figured this (Israel conflict) would be mentioned by CNBC or some of the financial rags -- it is interesting that they dwell mostly on it being "just a technical bounce." Why is this? Could it be that they don't want to even hint that it might be some kind of "flight to safety?" Again -- goldspeculator --is one word. Gold doesn't belong in the same sentence as investment because it isn't real money and can't make you any either ... the technical angle is funny, too. That is bandied about in a derisive manner w/ respect to gold (no 'real' or 'good' reason for gold to rise) -- All the while to justify why one should "get back in stocks" they lean heavily to the technical action, i.e. buying has pushed some index or other above some key level; investors are buying stocks on bad news, etc -- is a good sign ... The financial press is so inconsistent ... I wrote a fellow at CBS -- Farrel or seomthing or other when he printed a very derisive article about gold funds. He chided gold speculators to remember some quip by Peter Lynch warning the public about buying stocks when they thought they couldn't go any lower, making analogies to gold -- all the while implicitly arguing for putting money back in stocks. Does this guy really have the illusion that he serves the public interest with such tripe? Or is he completely sold out to the powers that desire a specific outcome? He never replied to me and I wasn't argumentative with him -- just questioned his logic and gave him my POV ...