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 : (LVLT) - Level 3 Communications -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Phil Jacobson who wrote (681)	4/2/1998 2:30:00 AM
From: MangoBoy	Respond to of 3873

<< I suspect L3 will continue to get their intercity network (not intracity) from QWST via Frontier, GTE, or from WCOM. >> that's "GTE (via QWST)". GTE is QWST's most significant dark fiber customer. mark

To: Phil Jacobson who wrote (681)	4/2/1998 2:59:00 AM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 3873

Looks like my posts only benefited you. Now you're blowing town leaving all the bag holders happily on their way to the plunge. After you've presumably sold, you make negative statements about LVLT. For months while you presumably held long you talked this nightmare up and now you quaintly divulge your great insight about what a sham it all is. It amazes me the collection of bagged fools playing this absurd situation. It astounds me how this entity could escape the intent of the '33 Act. It amuses me that there is still a used car salesman there to bilk the public when they need it most. The only recourse for the public will be for an outcry for the '99 Act to attempt to re-assert the letter of security law. And you've got the gall to say you're going to buy back in. Hah. Every other major telcom issue has peaked and is in the act of a major breakdown. Just go look at the charts. Even Northern Telecom has joined in. When she is listing, the game is over. You don't have to wait for the inevitable interest rate scenario to unfold. The charade is over. Sure glad you showed your colors just when your adoring fans needed you most. Right down the grand tradition of 19th century exploitation and the bad taste it left in mouths of the people of the 20th century. I have no doubt that you are on the phone doing a job interview, but I sure doubt every word you made on this thread. You aren't laughing at me, you're belittling the fools that are holding your great expectations. So I say to those bag holders, consider this: Phil sold and will NEVER get back in. You will hold and get whacked. Down, down, down it will go and you will get madder and madder for not having sold. Of course, you're wrong about that attitude too. Eventually it'll bottom and spend years basing. You'll give up on this stock and the stock market like most because the nonsense will be over. If you leave the position alone and NEVER sell, you'll make tons. When the company rises out of the ashes it will be highly unlikely that you'll even be able to find Crow. He will have eaten it years previous. If someone says to you, "you bought a great management", it will be like someone telling you, "they aren't making any more land, you know" after the real estate boom went bust. You have to ignore the stock market. It's only a place to go buy stocks, not a gambling joint. Guys like Phil treat it that way and are never wrong. They make piles, but are always broke. Funny how it all works out. The only thing you should believe in is the concept of fiber optic network. My investment fund never makes decisions about who is managing. We only buy concepts and we don't care who is at the helm. The management criterion is ridiculous because circumstances make good managers just like good products make good salespersons. Part of this delusion is track record. When it comes to track record and management, the track is always changing and so are the personnel of management, so how can you say the results are due to the skill of management? No question some managers will do better, but it is rarely a difference that makes a difference. It is the difference of transacting with one broker who charges $15 and another who charges $10. If that's a difference that makes a difference to you, you're in the wrong game. No one on this thread rebutted the claims I made about competition, ROI, stability of ROI, risk assessment, dollar/interest rate scenario. There was plenty of counter argument to make, but none of you did it. How dare anyone upset your plans for self destruction? You were too hooked by the Wall Street drug to be objective about anything. Three years ago you wouldn't have believed your current states of mind. That's what the Stock Market does. It sets you up until you are blind and can't see the simple truths. It takes guts to sell high. Now you know why the public buys at the top and sells at the bottom.