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 : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (282)	9/28/1998 1:41:00 PM
From: truth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

Here's another "fact" I want to dispute. In reply #261 and #264, you say SI acq account for the 5% increase in institutional ownership and once again you are wrong and what you say is false. The truth is SI received in excess of 1.3 M shares of GNET stock. With approx. 4.5 M shares already outstanding that represents almost 30% not 5% as you claim. Your tarnish is clearly showing maybe you should be renamed copperfinger. This is strike #2 get the facts straight!

To: Sir Auric Goldfinger who wrote (282)	9/28/1998 4:26:00 PM
From: mod	Respond to of 28311

<<As for returns,I have noticed and Fremont is outside the microcap norm (1 sigma outside it, to be specific). They also do not hedge. We do and we do it by shorting crap like this. We are UP 25% gross YTD, smart @ss.>> You're right about Fremont, they do appear to have a sorry collection of mutual funds. Who, exactly, are the "we" you refer to? I'd like to know, I might just invest some funds with someone who is up 25% this year, as my funds in LTCM seem to have suffered a temporary setback. Also, if I may ask, why do you substitute the "@" symbol for "a" when name-calling, which you seem to do often? Is it some sort of primitive attempt to avoid detection and suspension from SI for violating their TOS? Does it work, @uric? Dennis