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 : WAVX Anyone? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: M. Frank Greiffenstein who wrote (2448)	5/29/1998 9:54:00 AM
From: 24601	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11417

Dear Doc: Good to see you thinking long. I had gained the impression -- for example, from post #188 on your bierstube thread -- that you would "never let a trade be an investment." Or is this just part of trading?

To: M. Frank Greiffenstein who wrote (2448)	5/29/1998 10:39:00 AM
From: Marty Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11417

Dear M.F.G. Thanxs for the "pessimism." I'd say, though McAteer and Keenan sound intelligent they are hardly what one would call dialectical thinkers. Their babbling just makes for "good copy." Nothing more. What they say od analyst's expectations is nonsense.. which analysts? It's like reading the news paper and seeing that authoritarian "experts say" after every other statement... That the "public" is afraid of the Wave Chip is also so much bunk. The public fears what its told and it hasn't a clue as much as you do about all the terrible things that will happen to them if there's a WaveMeter in their component parts. As for how people want to covet the stuff they use.. own, lease, pay for use, that too is just a matter of smoke and mirrors. Most people don't own a home, they own a mortgage. Their building "equity" as they pay half their income to the banks every year so they can have a tiny little tax write off... what "ownership!" The article in Wired was put there to fill empty space. There was not one statement in it that as a proposition followed to anything conclusive. In fact, one could easily argue that the "argument" of the article was weak enough to be known to those who put it together in the first place. Thanx again for your bearishness, even if it is related through a third party whose simplisms of why things are the why they are and how they will be are obvious to anyone with better information and a little imagination. Your friend, Marty