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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19598)	5/21/1998 12:28:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I am respectable sir. Uh, respectable is as respectable does. I'd say your the master of cheesy debate techniques, but I got an axe to grind there, of course. "You want precedent? U.S. vs. Microsoft. The DOJ, the top cops in the land, have investigated Microsoft and found them not a monopoly." There's a precedent worth looking up. This thread used to be full of people who pretended to know about things that they knew very little about. But now there's just Reggie and the new wave John Galt crowd. Reggie knows the law, software, political theory, economics, what they teach in B-school (lest we forget the necessity of the proprietary lock), all manner of computer technology, whatever. It's easy to know all that stuff when it all reduces down to two words. Microsoft Rules! Me, I will politely, after a fashion, repeat a question in the area you are allegedly schooled in. If the Microsofties could stage an employee buyout with $30billion in options, why don't they do it with the current $90 billion? Why doesn't Bill do it by himself with his $46billion holdings? Enquiring minds want to know! Cheers, Dan.

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (19598)	5/21/1998 2:02:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

<Find us the reference where someone respectable defined the term 'socio-economic majority' or quiet down about it, for cryin' out loud.> I am respectable sir. This thread used to be full of people who pretended to know about things that they knew very little about. Didn't you tell me you were familiar with derivative securities construction?<<< A. You are the least respectable long term debater here. That's why you are the butt of all those jokes, Reg. Your ridiculous posturing and BS. B. I told you I wrote derivatives trading programs and products. Which I did. You, or anyone else here, can validate my previous employment in that position by calling human resources for the trading floor at Bank of America. That would, by the way, be a better reference for competence in the field than that of some recent business school graduate who slapped together a financial advice website, which puts you on about the same level as 'The Ruff Times' in my view. But I know you don't care about my qualifications, and you don't care about my opinion of yours, you just hope to change the subject, see C: (To all: why do all these guys seem to have the psychological profile of a Joe Granville? Who also calls everybody else idiots, as I recall.) C: Answer the question: 'socio-economic majority' is the term you used, as though somebody with an analytical mind in real economic circles had coined it. What professional or other reference did you get it from? Now, we know you can't answer this one either, because 'socio-economic majority' is just another example of your shakily constructed windbaggery. (To all: 'windbaggery' is a word of my own invention, so far as I know, but I haven't got a copy of the OED here.) As far as we can tell, you were losing an argument about how the majority of the populace felt about Microsoft and their products, when you coined this term to indicate that you thought that the majority of people with money were on your side. That's not true either, AFAIK. Cheers, Chaz