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.

Pastimes : SPIDER & RICO'S 'NO-BASH' THREAD FOR LGCY !!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Janice Shell who wrote (161)	10/26/1998 1:48:00 PM
From: Ellen	Respond to of 296

Yeah, I get it. Duh! You like cheap thrills.

To: Janice Shell who wrote (161)	10/26/1998 2:27:00 PM
From: Hogger	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 296

Janice, you have a number of good points and one very great sound bite in this post. Great sound bite: <<<My point, about which I'm quite serious, was this: over the past few months I've looked in depth at about a half-dozen BB companies.>>> Especially the 'past few months' statement. Janice, studying a field such as this over a few {or even quite a few} months certainly gives a person some understanding and expertise, but absolutely does not make them EXPERT in a field as complicated as this. It would be comparable to my spending a few months diligently studying the works or, say, French painters who lived in Montmatre and then representing myself to be an expert on their works. Sure, I'd be able to draw many conclusions and even make some profound observations, but I'd still not be EXPERT. Pretty darn good: <<<Incompetent or dishonest management. The more of this stuff I do, the more convinced I become that this is the SINGLE most important determining factor in the success or failure of a BB company.>>> You have demonstrated that your interest is not in making an objective overall assessment of management, but rather to narrow the focus onto a minority segment of the management and then to bash that person or persons without regard to their abilities and character, but rather to only focus on the singular event that you had discovered. Your treatment of CYGS is classic example ... you railed against Mike Skillern for his involvement in the event that led to his father being imprisoned. You never spoke with him, nor any of the other members of CYGS management. When the implications of Lawrence Mealey being a fraud, or at least overstated, failed because of his very substantial and successful background, you returned to bashing Skillern and ignored Lawrence's contributions to the management team. Your overall attack was nothing short of despicable ... yes Janice, just plain old despicable. There is no objectivity in any of your posted assessment of CYGS, and I'm beginning to become convinced, AZNT. Okay: <<<The "entity" you refer to appears to be Andy Mann. When have I ever "defended" him? I'm saying that the Word as received from the company is not the whole story.>>> I don't believe that I used the name Andy Mann. However, not that you've brought his name into play, I suppose the interpretation of "defended" may be open to individual construal. And, I've never been an advocate of taking anything the company (any company) said as the whole story. It will always be slanted to show the company in the most favorable light ... but I find your pattern of taking anything posted by the company (any company) as being totally false and fabricated to the point of being totally unbelievable. Oh Janice, you may be in the Art racket, but with your mastery of double entendre, spinning and propaganda, mixed with plausible deniability, you missed your calling. Hogger