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 : INFOSEEK (GO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rene Madsen who wrote (4436)	4/20/1998 10:17:00 AM
From: Doo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9343

Rene: I'm still checking on your alleged day trade exit point. Which stock was that, anyway?

To: Rene Madsen who wrote (4436)	4/20/1998 10:46:00 AM
From: cm	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9343

<<OT>> REALLY Good Point, Renee... And, Tom... There's not much common ground between SHORTS and LONGS. In order for one to succeed, the other has to fail. Zero-sum game. (I've oversimplified, thanks, I know... there are little subtle things like how SHORTS can actually help the LONGS, etc., but I'm not going there.) What I've noted on bunches of threads--both SI and YHOO--is this tendency to blunder in and start making dire pronouncements, sometimes couched in TA-ese, sometimes not so couched. Again, not really a serious offense. But, not very helpful. Especially when these pronouncements are not tied to anything related to the company's specific approach to its business, its management, its very real prospects, its competition, its recent announcements, etc. Now, I know, that's not where SHORTERS come from... or momentum traders for that matter. An acquaintance of mine, who does short a lot, takes a certain pride in the fact he knows next to nothing about a given company. Oh, he may snare something off of some news site that looks bad and use that as a part of his quick decision matrix. But, what I have a real trouble with is a certain tone that's been creeping in here. Nobody's case gets advanced by trying to slam a LONG with "Wake up, the party's over..." or "You LONGS are all alike," or "You're married to your stock and can't see it objectively..." etc. And I got lectured the other day because, guess what?, I was wary of somebody's continual restatement of one slightly relevant fact (that had a negative shade to it) and wondered if they were a SHORTER. Wow, even positing that as a possibility was, like, some sort of bizarre hypothesis. And, yet, on this and EVERY SINGLE THREAD I've EVER visited, a similar tactic of repeating something sour again and again--or making up something sour and repeating it again and again--is a common modus operandi for SHORTERS. Can we lift the tone up, again, around here? Can we not refer to others as "suckers", even though the reference wasn't direct? Can we lose the prosecutorial back-and-forth? Can we suffer who we may think are IDIOTS in SILENCE? Or are we determined to always get the last word, even if that word isn't particularly enlightening? Whatever some of our recent thread visitors may think, we've always managed to keep a pretty civil tone around here. And this HAS BEEN a pretty darned good thread. Yet, that doesn't mean we haven't had some spirited debate on the facts of SEEK's management moves, participation in revenue-sharing versus CPM banner sales, lack of good PR, etc. And, if someone can find a way to be offended by this post, then JUST SUFFER THIS IDIOT in silence... a skill called FORBEARANCE that I, too, have had to polish up on recently... Best Regards To All My Friends And Even My Not-Friends, c m