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 : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McCormack who wrote (20805)	3/6/1998 9:54:00 PM
From: Spartex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

Jim: I appreciate your lengthy and well written rationale for the value in knowing someones identity. I understand it,and respect it, however you seemed to go after ToySoldiers lack using a "real name" and completely bypassed his well written response to your challenge. I know for a fact, he has a reason to remain anonymous, you read his response, I read it, and I believe him! At this point lets move onto the real issues at hand, "Does Novell have a future in 1998 and beyond?" and "Is this resent stock price surge and volume indicative of the future ahead?" You are of the type that needs to see the earnings and revenue growth in the palm of your spreadsheet hands, others are more abstract and creative, and yes take a bit of a risk in doing so, and can see the revenues kicking in as Dr. Schmidt rolls out his core products. Wall Street doesn't always need a bird in the hand before it buys into the stock (raises its price). There are very many other examples of this, you follow IPO's right (in the red for a year typically) and see them get high, and I agree many times extreme valuations. NOVL isn't even close to that level IMHO. ToySoldier and I just see things differently than you, and so do the current buyers. We'll see who is right eventually, thats my point. Time to get a little rest over the weekend before the tech fest begins anew on Monday. Regards, Quad-K

To: Jim McCormack who wrote (20805)	3/7/1998 12:53:00 PM
From: Jack Whitley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42771

<<False Names will ruin the Internet. This is supposed to be a "valid" source of information. Names are important. Credibility is at stake. Why should I value anything ToySoldier has to say if he can't use his name?>> I disagree. Determining the "validity" of information in any forum (internet, print, TV, etc) is up to the reader, and the "value" of information provided by any poster or author is totally unrelated to the convention used when displaying their "name". For all we know Peter Connolly (whose name LOOKS real) is really Sean Connery (who I may or may not want to take IT advice from). Just because the convention he uses to "name" himself here looks like a "real name", does that make his opinion more "valid" or "valuable" ? There are people with pseudonyms on SI who have helped me make a lot of money. I determined their information was valid after reading many of their posts and checking against other sources. If those people did not post here because they didn't want to use their "real name", I would be the poorer. Conversely, there are people on SI who use their real name who are total morons. I wish they WOULD use pseudonyms so as not to constantly embarrass the parents that sired and named them. But they have a right to post, so we go on. It is obvious now even to the novice that the internet is valuable to us as investors in that we have access to so much more information, (and some from people actually in the know who use pseudonyms), which we didn't have before, and which is extremely valuable. It is up to us to determine the irrelevant or incorrect (in the context of what each of us need), filter it, use the "Next" button, and move on. Those who are most successful at identifying the "valid" information (regardless of the moniker used by the presenter) will make the most money in the long run. I like that, sort of an objective "Internet/Economic Darwinism", totally objective, totally not dependant on the naming convention used. Jack Whitley (maybe)