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 : Presstek -- Stock of the Decade?? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nanny who wrote (7174)	12/4/1997 9:35:00 PM
From: Paul Kelly	Respond to of 11098

My name may not be familiar to you but I have been with you all for a long time and this seems like a good time to thank you for the many hours of fun, emotions and education I have received here. This thread has pretty much everything: Passion; Intrigue; Sound yet often contradictory Fundamental analysis; Sound yet often contradictory Technical analysis; Courageous generals on each side; Loyal lieutenants; Dedicated troops; and an informed citizenry. Throw in heaping amounts of good humor, a cup of lye and even a dollop of conscience and it makes an enviable recipe. Thanks for it all. I can only suggest that you all appreciate the subtleties of taste that you bring to this feast and use your seasonings in moderation. Happy Holidays , Good Investing , and have fun attaching names to the roles. And thank you Mr. Lutts because without you I wouldn't be here enjoying this. What a glutton I am- for the fun and the money I've made here. Paul

To: Nanny who wrote (7174)	12/5/1997 10:27:00 AM
From: Loren	Respond to of 11098

Nanny - I don't want you to be unsure of where I come from, so I'll try to respond to your reply: a. I did say 'I love you!' when you wrote that post to Pierre, for the very reason you said. But there's a gigantic difference between trying to hold people accountable for what they post and ranting/raving back at them. Which is what I believe you now do very often (despite the 'Good Morning!'s at the end of your post). b. I agree this is not a Cabot board, and it is certainly not for Cabot bashing. But posting regarding the truth about Cabot's degree of accuracy regarding PRST is not bashing to me. Spelling his name LUTZ over and over again is, and if you'll go back to my recent posts you'll see I talked to Paul about that. c. The accuracy of Lutt's predictions regarding PRST doesn't have anything to do with the price of eggs, but it is relevant to PRST's price history/future. Lutts has been wrong several times regarding this stock (as I told you, I've been a subscriber to CML for some time now). And Lutts is going to be a target as long as he favors PRST orders of magnitude above other great stocks. e. HOWEVER, I agree that any bear who focuses on Lutts instead of PRST itself is doing this thread a disservice. f. I didn't say you hadn't been upfront or honest. But there's more to on-line etiquette and integrity than being upfront and honest. g. I don't care what position (long or short) anyone has. My thoughts and comments aren't influenced by any of that. h. Just because you don't set the tone of the conversation doesn't mean you can't influence toward the good. i. I never expressed outrage at you. I appealed to you to behave differently, and to encourage others (bulls and bears) to do so. I appealed to you and not some of the others on this thread because I thought that in this case it might be more effective to appeal to a bull instead of a bear. I'm involved in several threads on SI, usually about 8-10 at a time... depending on which stocks I am buying/selling/watching. None are as vehement or as emotional as this one. Nanny, I wrote to you not only because of one of your recent posts, but also because I thought you would be one who could (and might choose to) lead the PRST thread to a different standard. Was I wrong? Loren

To: Nanny who wrote (7174)	12/5/1997 3:46:00 PM
From: Pierre Panet-Raymond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11098

Nanny, I take great exception to your following quotes. "...misrepresentations...He rarely, if ever, posts facts..." I have posted opinions and opinions of others with considerably greater industry expertise than I. Never have I intentionally misrepresented anything on this board. Sure I was wrong about the ultimate outcome of the Agfa patent dispute for one, but the last time I checked nobody but NOBODY is correct 100% of the time.As far as rarely if ever posting facts, please list for me where you believe that I have been been misleading when I have conveyed factual information. There is a difference between the interpretation of facts and factual information.