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: Stan Price who wrote (7343)	10/24/1997 11:16:00 AM
From: Rick	Respond to of 12454

You are ****NOT** being ignored Stan! Others are **NOT**** ignored either. It IS a matter of FAITH.

To: Stan Price who wrote (7343)	10/24/1997 11:29:00 AM
From: Pugs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12454

IT ISN'T DEEMED 'IGNORANT' UNLESS YOU GET A WHOOOOOOOLE BUNCH OF C-A-P-I-T-A-L LETTERS!!! THEN YOU KNOW HOW INCREDIBLY DENSE YOU ARE FOR NOT COMPREHENDING THE WAY A SICK MIND WORKS!!!!!!! IMAGINE GOING TO A 'DEAN' TO 'ANALYZE' SOMETHING W/ RELEVANCE TO THE REAL WORLD!!! I ONCE HAD TO HAVE THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR AS MY ATTENDING ON THE SURICAL SCHEDULE with me, The attending on schedule with me called in sick, and was to do the A.M. surgical exams....I walked into surgpath to find the Medical Director, with the Ackerman Surical Pathology Text open in front of him as he tried to decifer what was the anterior side of a uterus!!!! THE EXAM!!! He couldn't even ORIENTATE the organ!!! I never saw a guy so happy to see me in my life!!! JUST WHAT YOU WANT, AN ACADEMIC ANALYZING SOMETHING 'APPLIED, BETTER THEY STICK TO THE 'THEORETICAL'...BTW, The Medical Director went back to his office to write more of those scary papers to get published in journals no one reads.....maybe Rick will do the same ! STEVE!!, AT LEAST YOU DIDN'T GET A 'GOSH'!, THEN YOU REALLY STEPPED IN IT!!! , Pugs

To: Stan Price who wrote (7343)	10/24/1997 12:18:00 PM
From: Dorine Essey	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12454

Stan, Your NO slobbering Buffoon!!!!!!!!!! Dorine Keep the Faith

To: Stan Price who wrote (7343)	10/24/1997 12:40:00 PM
From: Steven R. Bergman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12454

Stan, relax, you're not being ignored. To prove it, I'm stepping on your post to change the subject back to an issue often ignored on this thread: Computer concepts. What a novel idea, no? To actually discuss the reason for the thread's existence. I would like to identify a perceptual difficulty I have with the Internet-based product. Briefly, it is this. If call volume is small, there's no reason not to send all the data over the Internet rather than use db Express' extraction/visualization technique. For example, assuming a $1500 phone bill (larger than most business customers'), 3 minute average call length, 100% domestic calling only, and a bill rate of $.13/minute, an entire bill could be downloaded in less than 2 minutes, assuming no compression. In such a case, why bother with db Express? Why just not download the whole bill? How many customers do you think BT has with bills larger than that? And to the degree the BT bills are large, they may reflect significant international calling, which increases the cost per minute and hence reduces the number of calls necessary to achieve a given dollar volume. To the degree that the bills are larger, the data binding facility in the 4.0 browsers will enable just relevant sections of a huge bill to be downloaded once a report is requested. There is no doubt but that very, very large companies can use this capability in some cases, but I question how many BT customers fit this category such that it justifies the hooplah in the press release and the rush everyone expects once a formal announcement is made. As I've said, I have no insight or information re the Internet product (and I'm a shareholder, damnit, and so I should!), but the a priori reasoning above is truly basic, not insightful. Where's the market for the product? Moreover, since BT is not stupid, assuming there's a deal at all (and if CC needed the money to finish the deal with BT, why didn't CC say it when it announced the desired increase in shares authorized?), it must see something in the technology that makes the deal worthwhile. As I've said, I'm flying blind, and I don't like having to pin my hopes on something I should immediately understand but can't grasp. I want to make it clear that I am not challenging the need for the product; I'm simply saying I don't see it as a killer application and would appreciate being enlightened by someone who does and knows the product. And I don't mean opinions. I mean knowledge. Gary Kolesar, since you presumably monitor this thread, why not enlighten us? You've called me before. Why not do it again and give me a resource at CC to speak with? I promise I won't even ask any embarassing questions about the filing. Does anyone else KNOW anything? Steve Bergman