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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (26322)	3/2/1998 8:31:00 PM
From: GuinnessGuy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, What's even more unreal is that it was Micron that pushed out the order for the test equipment that was so sorely lacking. (Note: No -g-'s). I got an idea. Below is Kip Bedard's company email address. He is usually pretty good at answering queries(although you may be an exception-g-). Why don't you ask him to reconcile their lack of test equipment claims against this push out and post the answer here. Just don't tell him you are a loyal short.-g- Can't wait to hear his answer. kbedard@micron.com The TER news was laid out on the TER thread here: Message 3574082 Message 3574207 The latter of these two links is where you can find the smoking gun(i.e. - the Micron pushout).-g- P.S. - Maybe this pushout has to do with Micro going to a 256/128mbit chip way ahead of their previous plans. This kind of change would undoubtedly necessitate a pushout or cancellation. It certainly would be a first for them to be first(Re: production of 128/256mbit) so it is not a likely scenario, however it would explain why the stock did so well today. Craig

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (26322)	3/2/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: geewiz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Hi Mike, Here's some more of dem dots!!! techweb.com says in part; "LG officials told the Korean media the company intends to become the largest global producer of 16 meg DRAM in 1998..." On another question; lots of posters on SI link fund inflow to the rise in equities. Sorta' makes sense. Well how about 88? Funds experienced a net redemption yet the S&P was off to the races! Now I know 88' was an exception; is the present equity mania dependent on the fund inflow? My guess is that fund inflow is about as dependable as TA: works until it doesn't! best, art art