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 : Information Architects (IARC): E-Commerce & EIP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SOROS who wrote (5175)	3/22/1998 11:12:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10786

Humbly report, Soros, "tech, create your own thread". Svejk (GL-15 applies: digiserve.com ;-)

To: SOROS who wrote (5175)	3/22/1998 11:31:00 PM
From: bob oserin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10786

I sure would like to see these verbal bouts cease. I think you could extend your idea to all threads, Soros. Why not have a "long" and "short" thread for each stock. Then no ones sensitivities would be threatened. Ted, that was a terrific post on packaging. I wonder if Jeff could determine if this is still a costly problem at ALYD? Gee, wouldn't it be nice if we could all live in harmony!! BOB O

To: SOROS who wrote (5175)	3/23/1998 12:02:00 AM
From: ed doell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10786

>>(SOROS hint: In the book, they're going to show you there are several ways to say [here, the word, "write," is better usage than the word, "say," since the mode of communication here is the written word] words, and their method is probably correct because they live in an estate and have good manners.) << So the grammarian of the group then says: >>You can't only not take a hint<< ("can't only not" is a double negative) >>before I get the typical 3 or 4 people that [who] will respond with,<< (wrong pronoun: in this example, "that" is a relative pronoun for things, "who" is a relative pronoun for people) ********** >> How about being a real man<< So the "real man" of the group writes about another man's wife in an inappropriate context (an investor's group not some roadhouse) saying: >>(SOROS comment: I'd hate to be your wife)<< *** >>pure crap<< an oxymoron

To: SOROS who wrote (5175)	3/23/1998 8:32:00 AM
From: My Father's Son	Respond to of 10786

Soros, We want tech to stay. DMM

To: SOROS who wrote (5175)	3/23/1998 10:28:00 AM
From: TEDennis	Respond to of 10786

All: My input to the separate thread discussion ... I, personally, don't want another thread started. That will create yet another location for me to go read what is being said about the companies in which I invest. Please note: that last sentence was grammatically correct. I didn't use a preposition to end a sentence with (gg). On the other hand, I don't want to read the continual bickering. It's a waste of my time, and it's not even fun. I don't mind wasting my time if I'm having fun doing it. At least then I get a little comic relief from the daily stress of watching my stocks plummet (an unfortunate side effect of the "TED Effect"). So, my input is this .... If "we" can be civil in our posts, then let's just keep one thread. If "we" can't post our facts and opinions without throwing in a derogatory personal comment, then let's have as many threads as we have derogatory posters ... plus one. Leave this thread for the people who would prefer a rational discussion sans interpersonal p*ssing matches. Sure is a pretty day. (Grammatically incorrect. Bummer ...) TED