To: uu who wrote (10540 ) 3/5/1998 9:21:00 AM From: Jock Hutchinson Respond to
Kurlack a Con Artist--Not! The attacks on Kurlack have proven to be the true contraindicators--not Kurlack's calls. I don't know how much more prescient one can be when the day before Intel announces a shortfall, Kurlack, alone, among semi analysts loudly proclaims a potential shortfall in Intel's 1Q earnings. And that nonsense about Kurlack recently reversing his buy and issuing a hold (sell) at MU's recent bottom is just that nonsense. Kurlack first reversed his buy position on MU last year when MU was in the 40's. I am reminded that the owners of SI loudly complained to Barrons about its rating SI low for editorial content claiming that each member of the SI threads is his own editorialist. Well folks, if you are going to be an editorialist, you can certainly have an opinion such as this is the time to buy or this product looks promising or even this analyst is poor, but when one misrepresents established facts as certain members of this board have about a person than one is potentially engaging in libelous conduct if indeed this thread were a legitimate editorial--which it is clearly not. IMHO, it's time to cut the unsubstantiated attacks calling people con artists (see Zacks) and asking for their indictments when your facts are simply wrong. Indictment! How goofy does it get. If anything, the guy should be indicted for advising people to "hold" based on is knowledge of yesterday's announcement rather than misleading people.
