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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkral who wrote (123797)	9/5/2002 7:15:44 PM
From: Curbstone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Now THATS a good quote from Greenspan. And frankly, Greenspan's rationale makes a LOT more sense now than after reading Mucho's snippet followed by name calling. It surprises me that an obvious academic like Mucho would be so cavalier WRT documentation and context, but I guess anonymity will do that to a fella.

To: rkral who wrote (123797)	9/5/2002 7:17:05 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Re : quotations without source -- do you remember the time when some Chinese officials were saying unpleasant things to either the U.S. government, or Qualcomm (I cannot remember which) ... And, I posted something like this (maybe even over on Ramsey's thread) : Chinese minister to U.S. : Yo Mama ! And then, several people asked me what my source was for the quotation ... Jon.

To: rkral who wrote (123797)	9/5/2002 10:04:20 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 152472

a link to the source should accompany a quote when possible. That's just common courtesy. well, 99% of the posts on this and other chatroom threads do not follow your rules. in fact, most of the posts are just people spouting off without knowing what they are talking about, or else they quote sources which are themselves jokes (there are, for example, whole groups devoted to investing based on the gimmicky themes from certain cheesy get-rich-quick books...these people love to give meticulous quotes, but their sources are total crap). another very predictable type of post is to whine when an analyst says anything negative about one's pet stock. another type is to uncritically praise articles and recos supporting one's pet stock, even if the source is a total shill or some cheesy industry organization that just pimps the ideas of the company of one's pet stock. remember the day piecyk gave a $1000 price target on QCOM and the stock went crazy? did anybody say that was a ridiculous target? not that i recall (i didn't either as i was drunk on koolaid). instead, we all just cheered the stock rise and talked about buying BMWs and stuff. another predictable type of post on pet-stock threads (accounting for 25% of volume in down markets) is to complain about shorts and how they are controlling one's pet stock. the shorts are commonly envisioned as evil beings that should be destroyed. i, on the other hand, provided a real quote from greenspan, the purpose of which quote was simply to back up my claim that greenspan is on record saying he could have popped the bubble back in 96. if you don't like it and want to post the whole quote, fine. but i feel no compunction to do the same. sometimes i will provide more sourcing if i am talking about something rather obscure, but a greenspan FOMC speech from 96 is hardly obscure and can be found by anyone with a few keystrokes on the Internet.