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: Mike Buckley who wrote (52068)	7/14/2002 10:26:38 AM
From: straight life	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

"Curbstone, I'm embarrassed and offer my apologies that I don't remember your real name, don't associate your screen name with someone I presumably met in San Diego, and don't remember you as a frequent poster here if indeed you are." How about his previous handle: Aloha Mike? And we had an excellent time in San Diego, in the heart of the bubble, with our glimpse of happiness, before the roof fell in...

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (52068)	7/14/2002 12:00:27 PM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 54805

Mike, Thanks for the support. This community is a valuable resource and well worth fighting to keep alive. Every now and then it is even worth guerilla tactics. I loved the clarity of your post. I have to confess that I am tiring of the troll wars and the idea of a moderated board is very appealing. If the troll situation doesn't begin to improve at TMF I will start lobbying to move NPI to a service with the moderate feature. Paul

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (52068)	7/14/2002 12:03:51 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Hi Mike: You designed that poll question like an expert politician---seemingly rolling several issues in to one and making it very difficult for anyone to choose the option of supporting Shannon’s participation on this thread.<g> For example, if the choice is between ignoring Shannon or having Uncle Frank run a moderated thread, I would rather ignore Shannon on this particular thread. Since this is Frank’s house, I will refrain from going into what concerns me about the idea of Uncle Frank running a moderated Gorilla thread. However, I am generally unenthusiastic about anyone running a moderated Gorilla thread. The poll question also seems to be phrased to choose between Paul and Shannon. The fundamental purpose of this thread for me is to winnow and identify companies with winning strategies in high technology, which I distinguish from identifying winning investments. Paul is an absolutely critical contributor in that process. Shannon could be a very valuable contributor in what I view as step two of the investment process, that is developing intrinsic value estimates for companies that we have identified as having the winning strategies. However, if we do a poor job on step one, then step two is wasting time. So again, I would reluctantly give up Shannon rather than alienate a critical core contributor like Paul. I suppose I can engage Shannon in discussions elsewhere if the thread leadership is too irritated by his posts. So given your choices, and the undisputed fact that you and UF are the thread leaders here, I will go along with not engaging Shannon in discussions on this thread, but I am doing it as kind of a choosing the lesser evil of several evils, feeling that a moderated Gorilla thread or discouraging a core contributor like Paul would be a worse fate. Best regards, Huey@criesuncle.com P.S. By the way, UF hasn’t exactly been timid in the shots he has fired at JS, having suggested a few months back on the Q Buy Range that JS was part of a roving band of naysayers that go from thread to thread deliberately spreading accounting fud. Frank didn't name names, but it seemed fairly obvious that JS was his target. The fact that JS tossed a couple of softballs back doesn't surprise me, but JS should have never tried lobbing those shots back in Frank's house. A man's home is his castle.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (52068)	7/14/2002 2:29:08 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

So, everyone who agrees with Curbstone and Huey on this issue, please cast your vote publicly. In the event that you vote strongly and openly enough by defending Shannon and criticizing Paul, and in the event Frank doesn't want to create a wholly competing moderated thread, I just might create it myself. Creating a moderated thread is one way to keep out the annoying taunters and others who have no interest in the subject of this thread, only in the rise they can create or the self-promotion which they believe they can accomplish. But, on the whole, this thread has been remarkably unplagued by that sort -- if they come, they generally don't stay long. Personally, I think that is because the response to them is generally polite and restrained and the inclination is to ignore them if they persist, rather than continuing the contest. John Shannon doesn't fit in that category. He strikes me a bit like a character in one of John Mortimer's Rumpole stories who was an owner of a garage who had become substantially expert on the subject of wine, but was completely irreverent about the wine elite and whose language was, well, more like a garage owner than an oenophile. When I first remember him coming on this scene, there was a great fury about his brusque language and many people who wanted him to go away. With some guidance, he moderated his language a bit and was more readily perceived as a contributing member. Once one set aside the issue of the language, I don't think there has ever been a question of his posts having substance and offering an opinion which was well formed, whether or not one agreed with it. It sounds to me like Paul Philip has become sensitized to this language. This happens. Rather than ignoring John or chasing him from the thread, I believe we would be enriched if we tried to help him to avoid those uses of the language which trigger such impassioned responses or, if he slips, to do our best to ignore them ... rather like someone who has had the misfortune to produce a loud fart at an afternoon tea ... and focus instead on the content, returning the tone to the one we prefer. Keeping the tea metaphor, I see Paul as encountering someone with whom there is some particularly emotional history ... someone who eloped with his daughter, perhaps ... and the need is to direct the conversation away from that history to topics of mutual interest, suggesting perhaps that Paul go get another crumpet and choose to be in a different part of the room, i.e., put him on ignore.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (52068)	7/14/2002 3:01:13 PM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike, Well, it's up to you to make decisions on staying here or running to moderated thread, putting John on ignore or answering to him. But I think that by trying to threaten the people who support John, you are definitely not an example of constructive behavior. And by the way, I did not see anyone defending "likes of <John>". I have quite a few guys on ignore, but I consider John's input quite interesting and valuable. So here, you've got my vote. I'm with Curbstone and Huey and I don't support you, Frank and Paul. Prosperous investing to you all. Jurgis - someone told me that to wish this brings serious BAD KARMA for the wisher...

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (52068)	7/14/2002 5:25:36 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

--Mike, << So, everyone who agrees with Curbstone and Huey on this issue, please cast your vote publicly. >> I'm going to cast my vote publicly even though I don't agree with my respected threadmates Curbstone and Huey on this issue. I personally am totally supportive of Paul's post. It was appropriate. It was timely. It was necessary. It did not mince words. It was strong enough that it aired an issue that needed aired. It has provoked some reasoned discussion as a result. It goes well beyond the particular individual that you had to remove the twit filter on. One of the great strengths of this board has been the civility regular posters generally display to each other. However, as a result of being overly tolerant of individuals with an agenda different than the boards stated purpose, and a less than civil manner of presenting themselves, I personally think the board has suffered. I am not opposed to discussions of valuation or relative valuation, and I think that we have had many fine contributions from knowledgeable individuals to supplement discussions of the concepts of Moore, Johnson, and Kippola as it relates to corporations we evaluate. They should continue. << In the event that you vote strongly and openly enough by defending Shannon and criticizing Paul, and in the event Frank doesn't want to create a wholly competing moderated thread, I just might create it myself. >> I have mixed emotions about moderated threads, and I am generally opposed to splintering a thread. For that reason, I opposed taking this board moderated when Frank had the opportunity to do that. That was then. This is now. Should you care to moderate a competing thread with a mission the same as this one, I would be delighted to join you and abandon this one, ... even if you won't buy a mobile phone. <g> Should you elect to stay the course, so will I, and use "Ignore", when and if appropriate. Best, - Eric -

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (52068)	7/16/2002 11:09:32 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

re: Shannon Mike, after more thought, I would like to clarify my position to one of simply supporting Shannon’s participation on the thread. I have to agree with Jurgis’ opinion that the poll question was unfairly designed. On your second, separate issue, that of starting a moderated thread, I vote no. (The fact that so many people did not respond to your poll may in itself be an indication of its unfairness.) Paul says this problem isn’t about content, but I would guess that the original, personal animosity between you, Frank and JS from two years ago, was significantly inspired by differing viewpoints. I wish the three of you could just kiss, make up, get over it and move on. JS is a wise ass from time to time, but he has toned it down considerably. At the same time, I understand that my rantings about employee stock options, and JS’ rantings about valuation, should not be allowed to become a primary focus of the thread. By the way, I am still waiting for Eric’s hunt report on NOK. I did try a brief hunt report once on SST and my pick promptly tanked! I had Wind picked for greatness as well, and it flopped too. Maybe I could be effectively used as a contrary indicator. Best, Huey