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 : LSI Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hightechhooper who wrote (13354)	6/30/1998 10:36:00 PM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25814

so LSI outperforming the sox during this recent down leg has not happened. I know, I know numbers were never your strong suit that is why you became a lawyer.....Overall Jockey boy, you are out of your league in talking about these issues. K; As I have said before, I always feel that I can learn from my mistakes, so maybe you can bring me up to speed on mathematics. On the day of your first post the SOX was at about 292: iqc.com And today the SOX is at about 248. Now that's about a 15% drop in the SOX. And as previously noted, despite all your "huffin and puffin tryin to blow Wilf's House Down (Plus a takeover of a company one half LSI's size), LSI has infuriated you with a big yawn. Perhaps you can enlighten little 'ole mathematically challenged me as to how 15% down is the same as breaking even. One thing I have learned in my 38 years in the market is that a stock treading water is not meaningless. In this case, it bodes extremely well for LSI. Yes K, I am a lawyer. Yes, we are the lowest form of pond scum--indeed we were part of the "primordial soup". Unless, your problems become so overwhelming or complicated that you need someone to straighten them out, then we are your best friend. But despite my frameshift mutation, I am also from Chicago. So if there is one thing I know when I see it, it's the game of "Good Cop Bad Cop". You know what I mean--your occasionally telling everyone how "you're just another shareholder who has said many times that this is a 30 dollar stock blah blah." I give you a D+/C-. You need to be much more frequently positive for your downside con to take. Now if you wanted a con that would shake everyone up on this thread. How about FMR hiring a bright guy like Shane Forbes to hype the stock until they disposed of their holdings. That would be a hustle.

To: Hightechhooper who wrote (13354)	6/30/1998 10:57:00 PM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Respond to of 25814

It doesn't, it helps his institutional clients make money which is what he is paid to do. Yeah I know, the hoary old analysts are con artists screwing their retail customers theme. I have two words--Ben Zacks.

To: Hightechhooper who wrote (13354)	7/1/1998 6:57:00 PM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Respond to of 25814

Jockey boy, I do believe I am getting under your skin. Dear K The Instigator: You don't have enough grey matter to do that--it takes an IQ above double digits. Rather, your "talent" for grabbing attention is limited to publishing insults and simple lies that are easy to spot and correct. Accordingly, I shall ignore your childish taunts, post my response to your lies on a one time only basis, let the thread read my post, and ignore the rest of your tired act. Your options are now limited to posting repetitive rubbish trying to destroy the quality of this heretofore outstanding thread. Although you are free to do whatever you wish, I only suggest that you use your spell checker and proofread your posts before sending them. Notwithstanding your puffery in last night's post that You may be satisfied with a B+, but had I ever gotten a grade that low I certainly wouldn't have been., your grammar, syntax, and spelling is atrocious. Such slovenly writing reveals far more about yourself than you may wish to have known.