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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (97613)	2/12/1999 7:34:00 AM
From: Calvin	Respond to of 176387

Would be nice to see this on the 'naz today: Thailand 5:00AM 347.43 +33.78 +10.77%

To: GVTucker who wrote (97613)	2/12/1999 7:35:00 AM
From: Grant	Respond to of 176387

Looking for a "free computer" ? natasha.active.net.il Hope DELL is next

To: GVTucker who wrote (97613)	2/12/1999 10:22:00 AM
From: On the QT	Respond to of 176387

GvTucker: "One thing is for sure, at least to me, and that is that split outperformance is not a 'true fact statement'. It is an arguable opinion." TQ: Understood. He takes the data, if correct, which may say (and we are not sure of the criteria used) Split Stocks improve over the rest by 4%to 5% over the following year in the body of his opinion argument and changes it to in his fact box: "Splits stocks can boost its return by for four to five percentage points over the following year. Source: Ford Investor Services" However, at this point we do not know if in the fact box, he is merely repeating Ford Investor Services literal statement or he is assuming what may be an inaccurate interpretation of his presenting body argument which may include 1 and or 2 and or 3 as shortly defined in my post. Since we do not know how the conclusion by Ford Investor Services, if accurately repeated by Sivy, is arrived at, we do not know if the statement can be deemed as flawed, fact or opinion. However, at a level that speaks from my own opinion, I find your position workable and acceptable. I am willing to work with and usually do, much to the chagrin of the purists: 1 imperfect information 2 imperfect interpretation 3 drawing imperfect conclusions ( based on 1 and or 2) In a pure sense, some of this is not desirable, should be avoided in basic logic classrooms, and usually suspect. But then, what I am doing is using, when "better" is not readily seen understood and or available, that which most others find to be either 1 and or 2 and or 3. There are a few discoveries and valid for me concepts that I use, that have on balance been rewarding and not generally understood, accepted or known by the body at large. When known and generally accepted in the market it loses its "edge" value. I sift through and move ahead, to go through a similar process again and again usually discarding pieces of 1 and or 2 and or 3 only to add in new pieces of 1 and or 2 and or 3. In time, when fruitful, the imperfect becomes less so, and the resulting 1 and or 2 and or 3 becomes more user valuable. Sivy presents " The bottom line is that splits are unquestionably a positive sign " Fair enough for as far as it goes. I suppose if we can prove within an acceptable body of stocks using acceptable methods for determining such proof then we can say valid for us until proven otherwise:) Thanks for your post, your thoughts on this are well taken and appreciated. Regards, QT