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 : BORL: Time to BUY! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: VinWood who wrote (9489)	3/19/1998 4:02:00 PM
From: Bipin Prasad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Vin, You may have a little truth in your posting, but I have to disagree with you about "CEO lurking around ......" You are out of line. There were/are some CEOs who contributes on SI threads over years. There were one or two crooks, however most of them are very helpful and were very well received by members. I do not necessarily agree 100% with Del, but Bipin and I admire his enthusiasm and his energy level. Most of all, he is smart enough to share his opinions and wise enough to bring up our inputs with his staffs. Let me ask you this. What do you think I meant by "Waiting for next Tue - Fri for some sign of life on BORL." ? Just curious. regards, BPP(Bipin's partner)

To: VinWood who wrote (9489)	3/19/1998 4:15:00 PM
From: David R	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10836

Great move to liven up the thread. You are foolish to try and use Apple as a case study for BORL. Apple is stuck in a proprietary hardware pit when the world is clamoring for open standards. Apple is 10 years behind the technology curve. Jobs is lacking real vision. Borl is a provider of premium enterprise development tools. They have successfully moved for the commodity PC tools to expensive, high-margin enterprise. This company is far from dead. It is emerging as the leading provider of open, scalable enterprise tools. As well, it has been a solid performer in my portfolio. Anybody who researched BORL a year ago, saw 6 as an excelent opportunity to buy. I will bet you a bottle of Dom Perignon that BORL will not see 6 again unless the entire market melts. I would never regard an investment that has grown 60% in a year as a dog. Regarding CEO, even if it is Del, that does not mean, as you suggest, that he is looking for approval from us boneheads on SI. Could it be that he just wanted to say hi, and let us know that he is paying attention to Borland's share holders? I suggest you try and separate your personal bias from your investments. Borl is a great investment, and is ripe for a major run up. Lastle, I spent my honey moon in St. Nick's cabin. The old Santa's Village is now located at Sorenson's resort.

To: VinWood who wrote (9489)	3/19/1998 4:24:00 PM
From: James L. Fleckenstein	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Welcome to all BORL bears. I personally love naysaying as it buffers some of the foolish bullish religiosity that camps out in some threads. This thread is not one of them but glad to have an alternative viewpoint anyway. I did miss one thing from your post: WHY do you think BORL is lousy? Surely a few posts on this thread from somebody who is or is not the CEO of the company is not an adequate reason to short the stock, is it?

To: VinWood who wrote (9489)	3/19/1998 4:39:00 PM
From: shane forbes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

Vin: You exhibit the earmarks of a disgruntled former employee. Even if you are not, it would be interesting to see exactly why a washed up movie star would be considered washed up considering he has had just a little over a year at the company. And Apple had no vision and was heavily into hardware. Though there may be similarities (loyalty etc) between BORL and AAPL, BORL's near death experience and its similarity to AAPL's demise, are past - almost a year ago, when BORL almost went bankrupt. Though it could certainly be deja vu all over again at some point in the future, it's not looking that way right now. The trick is to NOT compete squarely with MSFT. AAPL did that and was smacked badly; now after 150m dollars they are more amenable. Likewise BORL was hurt badly trying to compete with the Great Satan, but they too have learnt to play by the big boy's rules. Also it will be awhile before MSFT goes with 100% Java and this leaves the door open for a company like BORL to take advantage of the crack in the armor. Finally BORL is targeting distributed object computing and this is a relatively new area that is a centerpiece of the new BORL, a new company as different from the old BORL as Phillipe Kahn is from Del Yocum. They are different persons; these are different companies. Shane.

To: VinWood who wrote (9489)	3/20/1998 7:53:00 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

You may have to wait longer than that. All the technical discussion on this thread is all very nice but it is completely irrelevant to the fact that BORL is history. Huh? Where have you been?

To: VinWood who wrote (9489)	3/20/1998 4:32:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Respond to of 10836

Very funny material, I must say: www3.techstocks.com Unfortunately, you have the right company and the right history but the wrong CEO. Moreover you've picked the wrong analogy with Apple since, personally, I never thought BORL was worth a plugged nickel, ever, until now. Things are different and they are entering into a new market, albeit a competitive one. VinWood, come back and see us in a few months, seriously.

To: VinWood who wrote (9489)	3/21/1998 11:00:00 AM
From: Sam Scrutchins	Respond to of 10836

You may have to wait longer than that. All the technical discussion on this thread is all very nice but it is completely irrelevant to the fact that BORL is history. They are at the stage that Apple was before it's demise. VinWood, It's pretty clear you are only looking to push our buttons! The reason this is so clear is that you are now attempting to translate your total lack of understanding of Apple's rebirth into your total lack of understanding of Borland's rebirth. You are absolutely wrong on both counts, and in this business, two strikes is death. Regards, Sam