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: Maurice Winn who wrote (127126)	2/23/2003 12:17:41 PM
From: GO*QCOM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

QUALCOMM DOING JUST FINE .....THANKYOU. signonsandiego.com

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (127126)	2/24/2003 11:14:17 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Yes Mq, yes. "The continuing attempt by Verdad to smear is a pain." Please forgive me, but I think no more so than the continuing attempt by some others to tout the wonders of CDMA. I suppose it depends on one's biases, yes? As to motivations? I really hesitate to go there. My mind reader was broken when I took it out of the box. So at least until I manage to find a qualified repair technician, when I see argument between sapient beings I choose to recognize miscommunication rather than malice. Unless and until malice itself is clearly communicated. Call me clueless, but it looks to me that Verdad initially raised a number of valid points which show that the presentation of Qualcomm's business to shareholders, while perfectly legal, took perfectly legal advantage of every possible legal loophole in showing itself sunny side up. As far as I am concerned, every egg that doesn't show itself sunny side up risks being flipped easy over, scrambled, or cooked while still in the shell. And Qualcomm is amongst a bunch of good eggs. IMHO, the appropriate response to such concerns is the appropriately rephrased form of: "big deal, everybody does it to some extent", and "the sillies who fell for the hype deserve what they get", rather than "no freakin' way did MY hero indulge". When we do not permit our heros the use of every weapon at their disposal, we handicap them severely. Because this is a contest of capitalism. A tussle between corporate giants over scraps of capital that you and I and hordes of others bring to the table. Historically by the good graces of the investment banks. A beauty contest combined with a wrestling match in conjunction with body building. And a bit of sanitary mud thrown in for good clean fun. Winner take all. The survival of the fittest. For aeons this contest has been waged in a private arena. Where admission is by right of passage and restricted to a knowledgeable few. Recently, with the advent of personal investing, this struggle has burst from the confines of the arena and into the streets. Previously it was professional against professional, thief against thief, according to rules that all participants understood. Or learned. For there is honor amongst thieves. But thieves against honest men? That is a different contest. When the force field came down and the Eighth level Mages of Finance were unleashed amongst the general public who greedily rushed in to tender forth their scraps in person... well everything changed. Like Pokemon, losing is not fatal. But the waking up afterwards is disorienting. Civilians who wander into the fields of fire are well served to remember the password: "buyer beware". That and heed carefully those few words of warning from veteran mercenaries. Like "duck", and "incoming" and (less frequently these days) "Go go run now go go!" Cheers, John