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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : CCEE Breaking Out -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steven R. Bergman who wrote (7246)	10/23/1997 1:00:00 AM
From: Sal Comunale	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12454

Steve, I get the impression that the company might not have the recourses cross the finish line. As for your analysis of the product it was very informative. My feeling is that the product may not have clear differentiation from its competitors.... www.verity.com..... Thanks!!!

To: Steven R. Bergman who wrote (7246)	10/23/1997 1:14:00 AM
From: Rick	Respond to of 12454

Steve, You say: >>>I am amused by the fact that I was virtually >>>accused of withholding it from the SI thread, >>>yet until your message today, no one ever asked >>>me directly to post a copy. That is more than slightly incorrect as you well know. I think my post directly to you quoted below shows that you were in fact directly invited to make this information available to the thread. Moreover several others as you may choose to call it indirectly requested it, by directly expressing that desire to others on this PUBLIC thread which you obviously follow. If your position is that you must be begged by posts directly addressed to you, then perhaps this post will make that fact clear so that others will in the future be able to accomodate your whim. The fact is although you say you want to remain above the din, name calling ,and disagreement here, in this case you directly contributed to it by this rather juvenile ploy. As a professional "communicator" and as a professional "trial lawyer" both you and Mr. Green are well aware of the ETHICS of argumentation, debate, or evidence, that require that such material used in the construct of a participants arguments should be made available to both sides. In this case the way to effectuate that objective would be to post it where it would have been available not only to Gary Green and my self but all participants on the thread. While you stoop to calling me a sophist you sir by this language show that you are not only intellectually biased as a communication professional you are intellectually dishonest, as was Mr. Greens unprincipled USE of the material prior to its release to all parties to the 'DIALOGUE'. You prove that point by saying: >>>I would like to be specific about one thing: I have no point in stating any of the following except to provide you with some additional background which in some small way may enable you to better continue your public SI thread course of rumination and dialogue.<<<< That kind of behavior Mr. Bergman is exactly calculated to foster the very negative spirit of dissention and mistrust that you say you want to stay above, and see eliminated from this thread. If the above shows intellectual dishonesty the following shows less than factual honesty in the statement that you were not DIRECTLY requested to participat and add THIS INFORMATION >>>The full truth is that I would value your critique(good or bad) far more than the paid pr and self serving crap touted in various "neighborhood" rags with circulation's in the 20 to 150,000 range. Moreover Steve, you certainly have never served up anything like the "cryptic crap" to which I am so violently opposed here. Quite the contrary I have seen you openly limit your input about 20 yards short of your area of expertise. <<< exchange2000.com I will say, as I said in that post Steve, this kind of behavior ,is IMO uncharacteristic of you ,and therefore disappoints me in you, and I am embarressed for you.