To: DavidCG who wrote (26274 ) 9/20/1998 2:58:00 PM From: dch Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 50264
David, I may need to recalibrate my recollector, but it's currently reminding me when you first showed up on DGIV threads, you didn't get a good welcome--either because of your tone or your timing or your message or somethings. I think the impression was you were trying to convince DGIV addicts they really would be better off becoming fixated on FTEL. I seem to recall you putting DGIV down as if that might put FTEL up... A lot of time and turmoil have passed since then. Now you're back and, although your tone has much improved, it still seems you're trying to recruit for the FTEL investor camp, and your argument remains much the same--FTEL (in your opinion) has more going for it than DGIV. But I guess it's all in the delivery. I don't mean to fan an antagonistic flame. I appreciate that you now wish DGIV, as well as FTEL, well. But you fully appear to be here doing the same thing as before: Trying to sell FTEL to those who own DGIV. Like we have chevys, but we really should get fords. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to have both. (Important question: do you?) But I personally don't have the bandwidth or energy to research a possible parallel opportunity. And I'm happy with where I am for now. While DGIV has yet to take those of us, who are still long, to the financial stars--as I think many had expected it would do well before now--we appear to be on the brink of a huge break away from the BB world's cesspull of gravity, and this next week should see the DGIV engines once again ignite, possibly with more force and positive (positron?) direction than ever before. I wish you and your investment in FTEL well too. No point in thinking that if either company succeeds the other must fail. I'm just not sure about the need to merge the two lines of communication. Makes more sense to me to stick with DGIV conversation here, and if anyone feels the need to discuss FTEL, they know where they can go. --dch