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.

Non-Tech : Sotheby's (BID) Auction House -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Iceberg who wrote (127)	1/21/1999 8:00:00 PM
From: janet kuhnert	Respond to of 236

To: Iceberg who wrote (127)	1/21/1999 8:33:00 PM
From: Steve Andrew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 236

ICE... 1) I, for one, do not make the assumption that everyone here on SI are "unsuspecting investors." and incapable of measuring my tome with the WSJ article yesterday and the Sothebys News release two days ago. My attempt to give you all a peek inside the otherwise private art world was solely purposed to temper the rampant, fanatical, and non-analytical bullish bias associated with the ever present Internet Mania. 2) Unlike many imposters on SI, my posts do represent my credibility and it is merely semantical to argue that they are different. I freely admit I sold my stock into this run-up and would like very much to re-enter lower...maybe I'll get my chance...maybe I won't. 3)I am not a journalist, nor an attorney...nor is this a paper or court of law. Posts are more often than not opinions, perspective, individual analysis, or deductive rational. I detailed the Sothebys art dealer contract floating out there and reasoning behind it....why don't you check it out and do some real work and see if it isn't 100% factual? My other "strong assertions" seem to square up perfectly with the balance portion of the WSJ article.....why would they make it up? 4) Interesting that you find my posts unbelievable, while I received several inquiries about my assertions from some players inside the industry looking for a little more info...must be they question credibility as well? 5) As for the MBA and trading systems remark...you are right, I was quick to use "mail-in MBA".....I should have checked around to see if their accreditation was brick&mortar....Soooo Sorry. Remind me to order the MBA guide to bottom-tier institutions and get-rich quick schemes next time. I may sound like a snob, $30,000 and two years of really hard work often have that effect....and at least we were taught how to process information independent of third-party bias and bubbly momentum styles. 6) Lastly, stocks go up and down and fundamentals often play an initially secondary role...but sooner or later they matter and the fluff disappears. I only joined this thread to provide some REAL VALUE.....where is your contribution? Steve P.S. I really believe that you just don't like having your little momentum (Internet-related) bubble pricked....go play with other little duckies.