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 : Wind River going up, up, up! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Brophy who wrote (4204)	2/2/1999 1:30:00 PM
From: Jerry Asher	Respond to of 10309

Mark, Please leave my name out when you insult and flame others (even when that may be in response to others flaming you.) I believe that your concerns over high write-offs affecting earnings quality are legitimate, but I have also questioned your use of the word "scam". As the WSJ article exemplifies, accounting procedures and theory changes and evolves over time. WIND appears to be using the best accounting procedures at the time they've reported. I see no "scam" and wonder why you do. People often come to this forum and state how it's the best forum on the net. There is a lot of value to be gained by participating in this forum, and a lot of it can be found in the statements of those you disagree with. As one of our finest scholars, Monty Python, defined it: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to support a proposition, not just the automatic gainsaying of the other person. Jerry

To: Mark Brophy who wrote (4204)	2/2/1999 1:39:00 PM
From: Joe Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10309

What is it with you Brophy? Why do you feel the need to resort to personal attacks? Your attacks against other posters and indeed WIND itself are always of such a personal nature. And you have this wonderful way of mixing fact and speculation. Facts were printed in your quote of the article. Wild speculation was printed in your supposition about not dipping into a cookie jar because of increased exposure to the SEC. It makes it very hard to read you valuable facts, when you mix them with wild supposition and personal attacks.I think that this line of argument is interesting and important. What I don't value is your characterizations such as scam, decent person etc. Can you stay away from the slander and continue to post informative posts?