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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Thread Formerly Known as No Rest For The Wicked -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Luke who wrote (8583)	1/19/1999 5:41:00 PM
From: Steven Finkel	Respond to of 90042

GSIC ALERT For those of you looking for the right company at the right time, check out GSIC. UP 75% today on almost 4mil volume. Still trading at only .28! See GSIC thread for much more info. News is imminent.

To: Tim Luke who wrote (8583)	1/19/1999 7:23:00 PM
From: Junkyardawg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90042

Over 31% in my paper account!!!!!! Not bad and ASND has not finished yet nor has Xyln. techstocks.com dawg

To: Tim Luke who wrote (8583)	1/19/1999 7:33:00 PM
From: Junkyardawg	Respond to of 90042

Tim here are your two picks that you have on my webpage. Over 14% gain and they have not yet begun to go. techstocks.com dawg

To: Tim Luke who wrote (8583)	1/19/1999 8:11:00 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90042

TIM: Seriously look at INSGY..developing JENE,its implementation of JAVA specifically designed for embedded systems....THIN FLOAT..VERY STRONG TODAY>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.......... OWNERSHIP NAME OF BENEFICIAL OWNER (1) PERCENT OF CLASS - ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------- RIT Capital Partners plc (2)........................ 2,032,897 16.8% John R. Johnston (3) ............................... Technology Venture Investors IV 1,452,349 12.0 Nicholas, Viscount Bearsted (4)..................... 774,758 6.2 Dr. Robert P. Lee (5)............................... 326,666 2.6 Richard M. Noling (6)............................... 242,190 2.0 George Buchan (7)................................... 113,519 * William McCarthy (8)................................ 77,811 * Stephen M. Ambler (9)............................... 21,937 * Joseph A. Taglia (10)............................... 16,875 * Albert E. Sisto (11)................................ 4,062 * Paul L. Borrill (12)................................ 3,125 * All directors and executive officers as a group (8 persons) (13)..................................... 2,628,812 20.4 ------ Previous

To: Tim Luke who wrote (8583)	1/19/1999 8:54:00 PM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90042

.. Here's one view on FORE's earnings......... 5766 of 5767 We're not talking Nabisco here, so earnings are not the only thing to base outcome on. While earnings may be important, there are two positive things here. First and the most obvious is the increase in revenue. But equally important is the source of that revenue. Looks like FORE is getting penetration into carrier market. This is important. Cisco views the key to their growth in the carriers. Everybody in networking is trying to figure out how to make inroads to carrier market. As for expenses, it does not surprise me that they're so high. They just got done rolling out their new high end carrier class offering and it takes investment of resouces to achieve a successful product rollout. While a grand-slam home run would have been to have better earnings, the results look very favorable. I think conf call will have favorable comments and that will help keep price of stock at least where it is... By the way, if everyone is disappointed in earnings, imagine what would have happened if revenue had been flat and they came in at something like 8 or 9 cents. Compared to that, they are flying. Give them credit for executing and doing what is needed to position themselves for long term value. Posted: Jan 19 1999 7:26PM EST as a reply to: Msg 5755 by eye