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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (5831)	7/11/1998 9:59:00 AM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Skeeter bug Point of info: I remember Bob saying MU was a commodity company and thus not one to invest in. I agree with him. I disagree with you on the "chippies" as I state here Message 5162750 What do you think about my "accumulation" statement where we buy these companies while out of favor to rack up huge gains when they are in favor. Remember, at present levels I STILL have a double in my original AMAT purchase only 2 yrs ago.... Do you think this gain will vanish soon and not come roaring back by 2000 or 2002? You see, I see no reason to pay taxes (20% US + 9% CA) to get out of a good stock in weakness just to try and time it right to get back in before it goes on to new highs. I will confess to telling someone to take profits and sell some of their shares at $49 so they are playing with house money, but that was in an IRA. The only reason I see to get out of AMAT or UTEK now is if you think they will go out of business. Unless Amish ways gain popularity, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting. regards Kirk

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (5831)	7/11/1998 10:25:00 AM
From: Justa Werkenstiff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

Skeeter: IMO when you are on the Brinker thread, motivation is relevant as there are just too many people who visit with the sole purpose of taking cheap shots at Brinker. Your post, however intended, carried the same characteristics of the pot shot artists. In that context and given what you had written, I did not make any leaps in my interpretation of your post. In fact, my interpretation was perfectly logical. But in the future, I will not make that assumption again as it pertains to you alone. Just do me a favor. Give much more effort to your writing from the reader's perspective and we also will be less likely to have this problem in the future. Moreover, if you make that extra effort people may actually understand what you are saying ; ).