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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (36206)	11/13/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

we need to start a new thread to post all of your nicknames for alan the printer

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (36206)	11/14/1998 6:33:00 AM
From: accountclosed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

If by chance you read this before you respond to my question on steels...apparently it came across to at least one reader as the question of a rookie. read Message 6416881 first. i didn't mean this as a rookie question. ns is selling for a song versus book. mu is selling for 4 times book versus ns at 1/5 of book. this is a factor of 20 different. headlines in both cases read "dumping in commodity business". I don't think steels are some glamorous growth industry. I didn't do much homework on NS specifically and perhaps there are accounting irregularities. But just as the internut of the day is a distortion, I think the steel valuation points out a distortion. Perhaps my line of questioning is all backwards in presentation to the thread. If you took the reasoning used in articles about steel valuations, redacted some of the give away words like "steel" and "factory" and replaced them with "dram" and "simm" and "fab", would you get an article about mu? And what does this tell us about mu???