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 : TAVA Technologies (TAVA-NASDAQ) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mr Logic who wrote (14773)	4/13/1998 3:46:00 PM
From: Rich Dee	Respond to of 31646

Patrick, See ya in the 20s!<ggg> Better yet, why don't you ride it up with us? That way you can actually make some big money. Things are just starting to get fun! Rich

To: Mr Logic who wrote (14773)	4/13/1998 3:47:00 PM
From: Douglas Rushkoff	Respond to of 31646

In other words, "fundamentals" has a much more specific meaning than "fundamentally."

To: Mr Logic who wrote (14773)	4/13/1998 4:24:00 PM
From: Zebra 365	Respond to of 31646

Patrick, Sometimes, when its time to buy, even if you are covering a short, it's time to buy, period. Some of my best plays have been where I say, I'm selling because I know this stock price is falling, so I sell a little more and go short. Or, when covering a short, I say, I'm buying because of strength in the price, I'll buy a few more shares and go long. Being wrong about the direction of a stock price is not fatal, seeing only one side of it can be. Maybe you should look at the strengths of this stock instead of the past weaknesses. Zebra

To: Mr Logic who wrote (14773)	4/13/1998 6:02:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 31646

<< I just edited out my response to your accusation that I am lying, it would have been offensive to sensitive readers. ... The thread can return to normal now, with no dissenting voices. >> Don't get so huffy. When I wrote "It looks silly to come here now telling us you covered 60% of your short position last week. BS. Why'd ya do it? Fundamentals hadn't changed", I didn't mean you were lying. Claiming today you covered last week is just amateurish BS that's below your usual level. There's no way to verify it independently, although I'm happy to take your word for it. (Also, just had to make fun of your "Fundamentals hadn't changed" lesson to the thread earlier.) Discussions of your (or anyone's) trading is a waste of time unless the strategy is known ahead of time. Only then can we appreciate your mastery (cough ...) and learn something. Possible role model for you, LOL: Tim Flick (who you love to put down). He made bold predictions, which mostly came true. That was impressive. He doesn't come here and say "I did the coolest thing last week". He also said he didn't think that much of "magazine articles", but I think he may be wrong on Fortune (I hope so). At any rate, he's out there with his take ahead of time. I admire that. Wade

To: Mr Logic who wrote (14773)	4/13/1998 6:24:00 PM
From: Quad Sevens	Respond to of 31646

Wait Patrick: Don't leave now, just as your story begins to unravel. You wrote: "Fortune's statement and mine are not mutually exclusive. TAVA offers a packaged short cut approach that will be attractive to a lot of sites. But the TAVA approach is not the only one." No one said it was the only one. Stop begging the issue, or you will soon be begging. Your statement was TAVA's CD could "be reinvented by any half-decent consultant in a day or two according to standard project management/problem solving principles". Fortune said it is "One of the most imaginative and useful approaches". Those statements are pretty damned mutually exclusive, and you know it. Credibility meter is pointing to the left, Patrick. Wade