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 : The Final Frontier - Online Remote Trading -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LPS5 who wrote (10169)	5/6/2002 7:52:55 PM
From: Bob Kim	Respond to of 12617

LOL! You're seriously asking why I might take a journalist's research slightly more seriously than the anecdotal, biased suspicions of message board posters? LP, I'd have to say that that particular WSJ writer has had a long-running heavy anti-Merrill bias so I'm a little reluctant to accept what he writes at face value.

To: LPS5 who wrote (10169)	5/6/2002 9:17:24 PM
From: KymarFye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12617

"LOL! You're seriously asking why I might take a journalist's research slightly more seriously than the anecdotal, biased suspicions of message board posters?" It wasn't clear to me why, after spending days and numerous posts offering up curiously uncomprehending pseudo-defenses for research/investment banking incest, your outlook would be substantially affected by the revelations contained in the WSJ article - why, in your view, the particulars would not be as much covered by "caveat emptor" as numerous similar and parallel practices, including some that have been discussed here. As for "message board posters," I'll readily agree that there are few who deserve to be taken seriously - ever fewer, it sometimes seems.