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 : MRV Communications (MRVC) opinions? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sector Investor who wrote (12334)	3/2/1999 8:21:00 PM
From: signist	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42804

(involvement of a greedy, litigious public.) Well...it's just not fair! I'd take my ball and go home except I can't afford a ball...MRV has most all my money under their control! :-^( Welcome Home Sector John Pouting

To: Sector Investor who wrote (12334)	3/3/1999 2:06:00 AM
From: Bruce L	Respond to of 42804

Re: Shroud of Secrecy Sector: Intriguing parallels and I like your phrase "Shroud of Secrecy" much better than "low key" or "low profile." If MRVC does have a revolutionary product - and there is some evidence that they do - then it makes sense that they would treat it like a secret government "black" development and would want to minimize publicity until it reached a critical mass. Some of the language sounds too much like hyperbole to me: i.e., "they have to look bad"; avoid venture capital and a "greedy litigious public." It would, of course, please me if MRVC were quietly in the process of bringing a blockbuster new product to a sceptical world. Taking the position of a devil's advocate, however, I would say that most secrets eventually leak out and if so, why hasn't MRVC's price shown more of a reaction to date? Bruce

To: Sector Investor who wrote (12334)	3/6/1999 3:31:00 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 42804

Hi Sector, I'd like to clarify some of the points you made in your upstream message about SilkRoad and one of it's posters. It does present in a humorous light, I have to admit, and I appreciate it for that quality. But I feel that it is misleading to the uninitiated. The quote that you provided was out of context. It was a reply of an "in kind" sort to what the poster AHhaha perceived to be the tenor of the detractor's claims. While it's quite possible that AHhaha may have actually met the folks who landed on the lawn, and in most likelihood dazzled them with QED footwork, himself, I can vouch that he only used the reference in the form of banterous rebuttal to what he thought was equally (and opposite) out of line. Since that time, it should be noted, the detractor who suspected the company to be a sham... (?) while he/she is still cautious (as well many of us who post there are), he himself/herself has turned around to a large degree and is now contributing in a more collaborative manner to the pursuit of what this thing called SR actually is, under the covers. It may be an off-the-wall thread in the estimation of some, and in some regards they could be right. But it is only off the wall in the context of seeing what sticks to the wall. Sometimes that's the only approach to take when the underlying facts are covered by protective and elusive language, as the SR patent and all of its "white paper" language appears to be up until now. At the same time it's none of the things that the captions in your message would lead the uninitiated to conclude. Why do I care? For one thing, it's an associative thing. I'm one of the originators of the Silk Road thread. Beyond that, the thread has opened up new vistas of knowledge and uinderstanding for me, in matters theoretical that I never before saw as being even remotely relevant. Best Regards, Frank Coluccio