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 : Presstek -- Stock of the Decade?? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SG who wrote (10086)	10/21/1998 8:14:00 AM
From: Steve Andrew	Respond to of 11098

Dear Canine Gymnast (of the bullish circus)... Jim, as best I can tell, is neither helpless, nor poor. POOR=PRST bulls over the past several years. Scotty child....you are an unrelenting antagonist who best serves his own cause by spouting off pure PRST bias. A two-day rally does not offer enough conviction to convince anyone (except your biased self) that PRST will begin to lift-off and reward its bullish cult. Calling anyone a "paid shill for the shorts" would be an interesting description...as the shorts have been the ONLY group capable of paying anyone, and the only group who hasn't any need to pay any shill. The issue here is $$$$ and stock price. You are still in the hole and we have been paid mucho moola....I'll take that over any of your diatribe any day. $$$ talks and B..S..T walks. Your shoes must be worn out by now.If you need a short-term loan this holiday season inorder to buy the little kiddies any gifts....let us (Jim and I and Paul) know....I am sure we can find some pressing charitiable heart. As for your wife/girlfriend...we can give her rides in our Porsches, M-B's, BMWs, etc....all bought with PRST bulls....ter's $$$$. You made me do it. Steve

To: SG who wrote (10086)	10/21/1998 8:41:00 AM
From: James C. Shircliff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11098

Dear scott, If you only knew the irony in your post regarding paid shills. Go ask any one of the oldtimers what I'm talking about. OK, Scott. You don't like annualizing these quarters numbers? The bulls used to do far worse by extrapolating the growth rates of 1996 and 1997 as the kit/royalty income went thru the statements. Now that was criminal almost, getting unsuspecting suckers to believe that that was sustainable. See first sentence again.