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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patrick Koehler who wrote (32741)	5/2/1998 11:43:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 53903

pat, save the phony righteous indignation. this post corrected my 10 year mistake... exchange2000.com it was 1984 through 1993. but you knew this. your analysis is akin to garbage in/garbage out. now, figure mu's eps from 1984 to 1993. $0.14 per year according to fred. if not $0.14 exactly then darn close per your numbers. second of all, why would i include what i said to be an anomoly (ie, substantial earnings) in my baseline figure? doesn't make sense. but, you knew that, pat. ooooh, pat, you got me on a technicality that i corrected shortly thereafter - which you failed to acknowledge. not the kind of stuff to rub anywhere. you know how i knew i corrected it? b/c of your almost apologetic "You might have meant 84-93, or 83-92." of course i did and i said as such. please, your attempt to make me out to be some manipulating liar is absurd, pat. absurd. sorry you are so frustrated you can't handle a contrary opinion. the fact is my original facts stand, albeit, i inadvertently put in the wrong years (missed by one whole year - ooooh, i'm a fraud now, huh, pat? ooooooh). i hope that round of utter pettiness makes you feel good. real good. no, i'm not bearish, pat. just on companies that have terrible business environments. companies that earn pennies for a decade, explode eps for a few years and then lose $0.50 a q in the midst of their competitors at 66% capacity, yes. that is the only way to be and be right. i argued for the current scenario in 1997 and people attacked me. so what. i was right. business sucks. they didn't earn all that money. despite your lame attempt to "prove" otherwise and attack me as a manipulator. pathetic. when everyone said they were going to make $3.00+ in 1998 i was negative and said they were wrong. well.... i know those boxes are hard to get out of. get out anyway. i'm over 80% long on stocks and 0% short. surprised? shouldn't be. it just goes to show how bad you are at assuming. does that mean they won't do well after this q (they are bleeding money again so this q is lost)? not necessarily. not likely, imho. $500 mil to pay back, lots of cap equipment expenses, korea at 66% capacity per dj are all great news, right pat? whew. i never said that mu wasn't a great trading stock. it is. for those that trade. it goes up and it goes down - that is what you need. the long term trend is down. $95 to $60 to $38 as highs. of course this is bullish long term, right? please. i have no problem with disagreeing. apparently, you haven't reached this point. skip my posts if you don't like them. petty attempts to "rub my face" in anything when it appears obviously disengenuine will not be tolerated. it will be exposed as pathetic.