To: Bruce Brown who wrote (49507 ) 12/15/2001 5:00:41 PM From: Stock Farmer Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 54805 I was simply taking the side of the technology adoption life cycle being an important issue to consider Actually, it appeared that you were citing it as not merely an important issue and equal amongst other important issues, but the most important issue above all others. If you recall your characterization: "I am not in total disagreement except for the utmost importance of TALC. That is what the entire game is all about " and "Perhaps you don't see the [TALC] as being the essential part of the criteria... " and "It is the basis on which everything else is formed ". I have never, not in any post, said that it was not "an" important issue. Indeed, I have constantly acknowledged its importance (for stripping away the techno-specific terminology, it is merely fundamental business analysis). Works for fizzy drinks and donuts too. Just that it is not more important than other factors.Bottom line: I agree TALC is the most important business criteria for evaluating the prospective dominance of a Gorilla within its habitat. ... TALC is more important than price? In an investment decision? No. So attempting to characterize me as dismissing TALC is barking up the wrong (and possibly very small) tree. As to the memory of hearing about overvaluation? Yes. I have similar memories. And remember that the same words uttered about BreX have also been muttered about Microsoft. But in one case they were true and in the other case they were not. I do not doubt an abundance of examples where TALC pointed the way to success. Just as there are an equivalent abundance of examples where TALC (or it's equivalent) alone would have led to ruinous investment decisions. Sure, it is important, but in no case should it be the determinant in an investment decision. As to: looking back on the past couple of years in which an entire environment unfolded that was based on trading rather than investing We look back on the same thing and see it differently. I agree the environment was speculative. But I also I see an environment in which fundamental aspects such as prospective profitability were secondary to such things as "growth" and "market share" and "dominance". At least these were the words most often bandied about. To me it seems like TALC criteria dominated investment decisions and people neglected consideration of economic returns. Wasn't the Internet in its infancy? Isn't it still at the very beginning of a long and fruitful Technology Adoption Life Cycle? Mustn't all businesses adapt to the new way or be swept aside by more nimble competition? Shouldn't everything "e" be lifted as the new economic reality washes away the past? And so on. Wasn't PEG the right way to view stocks in such an early-phase-of-growth environment... Bubble thinking. Thus my comment that TALC as having utmost importance was bubble thinking. As far as disproportionate returns as the goal of the game, well "disproportionate" means out of proportion. In context of citing purpose as the meter against which to measure importance, it should be clear (at least in retrospect) that I meant better returns. Your assumption of my motives is incorrect. Apology accepted, but not necessary. No hard feelings, many on this thread have assumed far worse and been equally inaccurate. You at least have the grace to apologize. John. P.S. If I recall correctly, you just may end up drinking a 'cool' beer tonight ;) Although in Vienna it will likely be less than frosty. Enjoy.