To: Dr. Id who wrote (54449 ) 10/21/2003 3:27:38 PM From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 54805 the Gorilla Game has been shown to be a questionable strategy... One expects this sort of thing from visiting snipers, but one would think you had been around long enough to have a clearer view than this? Or were you remarking only as it applies to the choices you made. I think most of the regulars on this board were clear from well before the bubble burst that as an investment strategy the Gorilla Game was, at best, incomplete and the official reference manual included some positions that were not really defensible. To be sure, there were still lots of us who hadn't yet figured out how to make it more complete when the fall came and were caught holding things we shouldn't have, but one can hardly blame Geoff Moore after one has already decided that one needed to do more. More to the point, I think it has also been the case since way, way back that whether or not we believed any part of the Gorilla Game as an investment strategy, we were still clear that we thought that Geoff Moore's perceptions about the Technology Adoption Life Cycle were very insightful and were something which should be carefully considered by those investing in high tech. Frankly, I don't think that has changed one bit. If anything, we have seem further demonstrations. Frankly, I don't think it is as much a case that Geoff Moore turned out to have clay feet as an investment guru is that he wasn't really an investment guru to begin with. He may have gone along with the idea of putting on stilts to look the part for a while and those stilts may have had clay feet, but that didn't and doesn't have much to do with Geoff Moore's real contribution.