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 : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PERDIEM who wrote (6579)	3/26/1999 7:07:00 PM
From: Michael Olds	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

Jump in there PERDIEM, CARPE if you will! OK, may be I am talking about hype. But a benevolent sort of hype. One that creates such a clear vision of things the way they could be that it becomes impossible to ignore the possibility without coming up with a vision that is even grander and more realistic. I am saying that this needs to be done to enable any sort of future. The stock price is the currency of AXC's future, at it's present valuation, we go nowhere. With a vision that creates excitement and an increased valuation for the stock, this vision, or the grander vision become possible. I am saying, then, let the Elders hear me. Let them pool their resources around a single concept to let it become this compelling vision. I am saying let that concept be the “franchise” or “Network Product” model. Take that and run with it. Flesh it out. Use your fantasy maker. Create your ideal studio product. Use the tools we are given: Ampex as we know it, TVontheWeb, Reiter, Aent, and the creation of production studios on both coasts. That's all you get unless you can give a precise figure to an expenditure from the capital on hand. I am saying use this vision because it is both in a straight line from the present, and a leap into the future. If it is the wrong vision and it is created with enough clear imagination, it has the twin virtues of being something that might be compelling enough to cause Ed et al to consider it; or if it is the wrong vision, and it is compelling enough to be considered, then not doing it will need a more compelling (if even only for it's basis in possibility) vision, and that, after all, is all we are asking for, is it not?