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: TheRainmaker who wrote (20856)	9/8/1998 7:57:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

The indication that finally the Fed has awoken to it's badly mistaken policy of the last 6 months has helped the markets, as it should. However, in the past you only got sustained bull moves based on interest rates when the Fed dropped discount, not overnight, rates several times in a row, according to Marty Zweig's book. I also am suspicious of today's graph. Big pushes from the MMs and/or institutions in the first half hour and the last half hour of the day, with no interest from the public all through the middle part of the day, as far as I could tell. It looks like a put-up suckers rally to me. Further, we are trying to move the world this time, due to how late we are acting in a variety of arenas, not just Fed policy. Foreign policy, military action, foreign aid, trade agreements, all have been laggard. After this little bounce where will we be? The Fed needs to take actual measures, little as it may suit their dignity to rush so. And then they may find they are pushing on a string in some of these countries for a while. E.g. Japan, where the Yen price complicates things short term. Although I am optimistic long term because of all the reform movements, these things take a lot of time. You can't start late like this and expect immediately gratifying results. Cheers, Chaz

To: TheRainmaker who wrote (20856)	9/8/1998 8:21:00 PM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

>>> The profile of the anti-Microsoft type is consistent.. Usually the one at a party who just can't fit in, and has a problem with winners. <<< You are a winner? No doubt. But not based on your apparent skill set in amateur psychology, nor your writing. So sorry. (:-\|) Perhaps in other areas which we have as yet no reason to suspect. I'm sure that's it. I have never met a person, no matter how lowly, who could not contribute something of value, if one found out enough about them. Nothing wrong with being below average for the board, of course. I don't want to seem elitist. We need MSFT supporters, and people to do dishes, too. >>> Every anti-Microsoft person I have met fits that description. Geez, this is how all the other stereotyping starts out also, doesn't it? "All the _____________ (race, sex, ethnic group, other philosophy) people I have met always ____________________". A possible sign of a weak and prejudiced mind. Early onset Alzheimers, perhaps. You are sure you're not one of those B- BS in psychology types the PR agencies like to hire to troll these fora? It's hard to tell. Your lack of a personal profile for SI makes you seem a little paranoid, but that could be for a good reason. If you are - just admit it. I'm sure we'll all have more respect for you. At least it would be a rational explanation for your thoughts, which till now have seemed so - Random? Cheers, Chaz

To: TheRainmaker who wrote (20856)	9/8/1998 9:00:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

The profile of the anti-Microsoft type is consistent.. Usually the one at a party who just can't fit in, and has a problem with winners..Would rather tear down the successful ones cause they don't feel they measure up. Every anti-Microsoft person I have met fits that description. Nothing wrong with it, just a fact. Right, Tim. Like Ronald Reagan said, "facts are stupid things". Some Microphile had some other take on that I forget. I'd say "nice ad hominem", but you're going a little deep here. The "Bill Gates is John Galt" argument has been presented a time or two before. I respect people like James Bowers who are honest and direct about their convictions, you got a way to go. Ain't just me who wishes Windows sucked less. Cheers, Dan.

To: TheRainmaker who wrote (20856)	9/8/1998 9:25:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Respond to of 24154

Tim, >>The profile of the anti-Microsoft type is consistent.. Usually the one at a party who just can't fit in, and has a problem with winners.. Surely there are some who fit this general character assasination, many of whom took jobs at Microsoft as well. Did you cry foul when IBM (the hero of its day) was flailing away under anti-trust investigation? You people are making it an "anti-Microsoft" crusade why'll many of us on the consumer side see it as company X that is resorting to an increasingly blatant abuse of the business environment which makes this the country of envy worldwide. Maybe in a free enterprise system like ours, getting caught is a form of natural selection. Lots of successful corporations out there and yet we all unanimously chose to persecute Microsoft as part of some vast underground movement to punish the winners in America? I don't know why the Microphiles are so paranoid; if Microsoft has nothing to hide then this court thing is just a matter of going through the motions -- more of an inconvenience than anything else. Cheers, Norm