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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkral who wrote (62934)	4/20/2007 8:33:56 PM
From: peterk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196848

rkral- Eric is a big boy who likes to spout off irrelevant answers to softball questions, however when presented with hard facts that diminish his beloved Nokia he is no where to be found. Why don't you let Eric answer for himself and quit picking on someone who contributes to the understanding of the issues more in one day than you do in a year.

To: rkral who wrote (62934)	4/23/2007 11:37:16 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196848

rkral / peter--- Why- “appearances” vs realities--------------------- Gave it some thought, and probably against my better judgment offer this reply>>> Too many outbursts (rage) like this recently and over the years directed against me and others “when presented (challenged) with hard facts” that he cannot effectively defend. Message 23481247 Example of one admonition re: similar “unsettling” outbursts>>> Message 19461800 To:Eric L. who wrote (271) From: Mike Buckley Monday, Nov 3, 2003 6:24 PM View Replies (2) \| Respond to of 319 Eric, (re;)” you did it consciously” As one who has been publicly accused in the other thread of being dishonest, hypocritical, writing revisionist history, writing posts with both fists pumping, discouraging dissenting opinion, driving people from the thread, and having an inflated ego (that's just in the last week), seeing your comment about Jim is very unsettling. Jim might have presented inaccurate information but you can't possibly know that he did so consciously. I believe you owe him and the thread an apology. Otherwise, this thread is no better than the other one, in which case I'm outta both of them instead of one of them. --Mike Buckley