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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (26522)	6/10/2004 8:49:22 AM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Respond to of 34857

Still daydreaming?? Is there quack-life after 2008 and 4G??

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (26522)	4/21/2007 6:05:26 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34857

Mano a Mano Jim, Agreed- also thought it was lame attempt at defending/ supporting NOK / Simonson and again revealing true colors /further harming his credibility. ... In defending his “champion”, he took my “fabricated 1992 reference” completely out of context and rambled on with meaningless diatribe on NOK’s history. I find it interesting that he could not effectively argue the facts and had to resort to using NOK’s / Simonson’s tactics- hyperbole and distortion. ... Further, I find it particularly noteworthy that as NOK’s / GSM’s (web mobile wireless boards) chief authority and NOK’s / GSM’s principal defender, he apparently recognized (it required immediate response) but could not effectively dispute the significance of the 1992 assertions resulting in comments such as >>”Huh ???...What a BS response”. A minor point I think not. If a minor point, why continue to use a Fabricated 1992 contract reference vs the actual date of last contract signing being mid 2001??? ... Getting curiouser and curiouser- Why NOK’s straight shooting “just the facts, mam” Simonson (and NOK’s preeminent defender) continue to go out of their way knowingly and erroneously promoting / promulgating 1992as the reference date of their last QCOM license when if fact its mid-2001. Message 23478441 After reading many such comments from you to members of a board I've participated on since its inception (as I did its predecessor) I am finally moved to comment on your ongoing board tactics. Rather than pollute the QUALCOMM sacred stream of purity, I'm going to do it here, more privately, on this lightly trafficked board that was once a favorite playground of the more rabid, frustrated, and parochial members of the nutball fringe of QUALCOMM's barmy army of loyal headbangers. In message board discussion I prefer to talk directly TO people rather than ABOUT people. It is apparent that you don't. Whether or not that tendency of yours reflects a low testosterone level, shriveled testicles, a lack of what Ron referred to as chutzpa or perhaps the presence of chutzpa depending on the connotation one attaches to the word, or simply social and emotional immaturity or insecurity, I'm not sure. Perhaps it is simply a byproduct of years of participation on AOL boards where netiquette was often either never learned or practiced by some board participants who were intolerant of the views of others, all too frequently. How you choose to conduct yourself while promoting Qualcommunism, and dissing anyone whose view does not support the one you try so hard to promote, is your business. Be advised, however, that when you attempt to present a distorted view of reality with missionary zeal, that I am likely to comment directly TO you, and present my contasting view. If you lack the caljones to respond back directly to me, that is your prerogative. Prosperous Investing, - Eric -