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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Trader who wrote (50379)	8/10/2001 4:06:31 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

John, I certainly hope you post here as frequently as you have in the past, though I will understand should you choose otherwise. I have been through several episodes where I felt like I was alone and those times grow tiring very fast. Posts going back and forth criticizing every minutiae in a post do not help anyone make more money in the market. They are a waste of time and space, and yet that is what people like Cary excel in. Or should I say that is practically all he does? Again, I am not trying to pick on Cary but his egregious behavior and the tacit complicity of others on the thread allowing such actions to go unchallenged, only leads to people feeling tired from defending their positions and a certain percentage of them eventually quitting from posting altogether. Regards, Brian

To: John Trader who wrote (50379)	8/10/2001 4:12:20 PM
From: Gottfried	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

John, re >If someone posts an article that someone else disagrees with, the person who posted the article should still be recognized for having found and posted the article< Good point. "Thanks for the article. I take issue with..." could be a valid response. I hope you continue to post with the same frequency as before. Gottfried

To: John Trader who wrote (50379)	8/10/2001 5:35:07 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

RE: "...several replies from Cary before that I did not appreciate." So, Cary doesn't think much of what you post. Get over it. Cary doesn't think much of most of what is posted at SI. At least, Cary thinks enough of your posts to respond to them. RE: "where posters have either stopped posting, or thought of doing so as a result of Cary's attacks." Others have testified on this thread that Cary doesn't make personal attacks. If Cary shreds someone's logic and he realizes he has nothing to say, where is the loss? RE: " It is obvious to me from some of the other posts that Cary is appreciated by some of the members of this thread for his contributions. However, how can we measure the non-contributing effect that tends to occur when someone stops posting as a result of constant harassment, or whatever..." What is this "constant harassment, or whatever" that you accuse Cary of? Can Cary pose an opposite opinion each time another poster posts? RE: "The style Cary employs seems to be one analogous to shooting from a slit in a stone wall. It is easier to argue if you keep people on the defensive, taking shots at whatever they produce, while at the same time providing little information about alternative courses of action" Cary believes that people post on threads to have their ideas tested in public. If the ideas can't stand the light of day, the poster has learned a free lesson. RE: "With someone like Cary taking broad shots at such contributions, I think the net effect will be fewer articles being posted." Cary believes that people post articles on threads to have the articles' ideas tested in public. If the ideas can't stand the light of day, the poster has learned a free lesson. RE: "I don't recall Cary posting any articles at all on this thread..." Cary doesn't think much of many articles and Cary has copywrite concerns about reposting useful research. Cary did post an excerpt from ML which stated that INTC would spend 68% of the $7.5B capital investment budget by the end of the June quarter. RE: "Also, if he is so negative on the stocks mentioned by the author at these levels, why doesn't he short them?" Cary doesn't recall making a negative statement on those stocks or even which stocks they are. RE: "Finally, I think it is worth noting that the author seemed somewhat humble to me, and was not deserving of such harsh criticism." Cary read Charles Dicken's "David Copperfield" and is familiar with the character of Uriah Heep. Are you? RE: "I hope nobody minds if I do not post here as often." Cary won't mind, but Cary wonders about all the lurkers whose investment success depends on your expertise.