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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Reuben who wrote (15477)	2/4/1999 5:22:00 AM
From: RTev	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

> Most of the secretaries in MSFT aren't good-looking. >> When did that become part of a stock's fundamental analysis? >> Was it really necessary to point that out? And not only that: It's the one part of his analysis that just doesn't ring true. For one thing, they're not "secretaries". They are "admins". And many of them... I'd even venture to say most of them are good looking. I always figured it was part of that arrogant high-school-boy corporate culture. It's those boys with poor social skills who are hiring the admins, after all.

To: Paul Reuben who wrote (15477)	2/4/1999 3:55:00 PM
From: Byron Xiao	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Well, if you believe IMAGE is EVERYTHING, then I think hiring good looking women are important. Programmers don't need to be pretty, because we are doing the grunt work. But I would feel better if my "Admin" doesn't look like Paula Jones. This Bill and the Bill in White House has one thing in common: neither one of them has any taste for women. In case you don't know, Victoria Secret's first broadcast of fashion show on WS attracted 1.5Million online visitors. I guess people don't care about image, huh? Most of the secretaries in MSFT aren't good-looking. When did that become part of a stock's fundamental analysis? Was it really necessary to point that out?