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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: synchros who wrote (43854)	6/24/2001 4:58:10 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Thanks for your opinion, Synchros. I'm glad you felt comfortable voicing it, and it's most welcome. My comments to John represented mine, though I admit that the accusation contained in his post evoked a stronger response than I might normally have made. There is no coordinated attack being pressed here. I was merely expressing my personal reaction. >> Uncle Frank hadn't come down so hard (complete with a Prosperous Investing closing) on John I am of the belief that wishing an adversary prosperous investing at the end of a debate is a rather genteel way of agreeing to disagree. If you think that's rough, you'd be shocked to see how it's done on other threads. >> John's logic has (again, imho) been very solid and often unanswered by his respondents. There's really nothing to answer. John has postulated that one puts their capital at risk if they remain invested in gorilla or king stocks during a period when the overall market is going to swoon. In light of the last 15 months it would be foolish to disagree. But he hasn't offered any predictive tools, so there is nothing to dispute. uf

To: synchros who wrote (43854)	6/24/2001 9:38:37 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 54805

Synchros, John's logic has (again, imho) been very solid and often unanswered by his respondents. You might remember that I wrote a post for the sole purpose of explaining why I chose not to respond to John. I don't understand the purpose of mentioning your opinion that his points have often been unanswered. I'd like to point out that the regular, long-time participants have as much right as the lurkers not to respond to a post. --Mike Buckley

To: synchros who wrote (43854)	6/24/2001 9:53:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 54805

Synchros, Sorry that I forgot to respond to a comment of yours in my previous post ... As an infrequent poster, but frequent reader, I offer this (hopefully) objective view, unencumbered with the complications and distractions of thread ownership. As a frequent poster, all of my comments about anything to anybody are unencumbered with complications and distractions of thread ownership. Not being an INSP shareholder, I have no ownership in the thread. I think Frank expressed very well the point that we are a community of peers. I wouldn't want my favorable or unfavorable view of a post to be confused with anything about thread ownership. --Mike Buckley