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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ted David who wrote (19203)	4/23/1999 10:53:00 PM
From: Greta Mc	Respond to of 93625

td, I was a shareholder of cpq at the time of the interview and watched the interview carefully. As I recall, you did deliberately refer to questions posted on SI and recognized them as such. There is alot of valuable information to be found on SI, if one chooses to look for it. As way of an example, as I recall, posters on SI discovered the truth about the bogus PAIR takeover "news" release before CNBC reported on it. In other words, there are valuable insights to be found on SI, if they're combined with proper research...and I, for one, appreciate that you review SI. Best to all, Greta Mc

To: Ted David who wrote (19203)	4/24/1999 10:58:00 AM
From: KENNETH R SANDERS	Respond to of 93625

TD, Give 'em hell Ted. Nuff said. Chutzpah Rules<G>

To: Ted David who wrote (19203)	4/24/1999 11:52:00 AM
From: Roads End	Respond to of 93625

TD...First I want to thank you and congratulate you for the excellent interview with Pfeiffer. What made it great was that you did not "lift" the standard questions allowing Pfeiffer to give the stock answers. I would like to see more interviewers follow your lead and that of Mark Haines to drill down past the tired softball format. Steve

To: Ted David who wrote (19203)	4/24/1999 1:55:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

td, Sorry if you thought my comment was "gratuitous" and I agree with you that the implication was that you somehow "plagerized" victor. And of course, that was NOT the case and unfortunately, it wasn't the the intent of my statement about "lifting" his mock interview but I see how it was construed that way. The larger point I was making was that (and I hope you will at least agree with this) with the advent of the financial networks and their obvious need to "fill" airtime, the on air personalities are under tremendous pressure to do just that, "fill it". It also means that that due to this more and more they will use shall we say "non-traditional" methods of garnering content.(not necessarily a bad thing as long as it's properly researched) The problem with this is that it may result in a regurgitation of opinions that may or may not conform with the underlying facts. For example, I noticed that last week you were contacted about reporting on EMC and referring to it as a "disk drive" manufacturer. The RMBS shareholders have complained since the stock went public that it is constantly referred to as a "chip manufacturer". This type of reporting in my opinion is unacceptable. I realize that you as an individual cannot be aware of every single publicly traded company and what they do, but EMC is a fairly heavily reported company and RMBS has received a fair amount of coverage. I think it's reasonable to to hope that reporters would have at least enough research to understand the most basic fundamentals of the companies they report. As I said in my post about Burstiner's article, if you want to get the story about what investors are saying about RMBS, you don't need to read her article with "selected" quotes that re-enforce her view, you can go right to the source and get all sides. And yes, I do think there is some laziness. It's just too easy to go to a web site and pick through other people's opinions and research rather than going to the immediate source, i.e, the company or their analysts . I also want to re-iterate that citing YOUR interview with 5fer in the same breath was wrong. I understood the point of that specific interview and it wasn't an appropriate example of what I was trying to express.. So my apologies to you for that. I'm glad that the major media outlets are monitoring the investment discussion boards to get "the pulse" of what investors are thinking and saying (as you did in your 5fer interview), but I am concerned that the pace of reporting will open up the potential of media talking heads disseminating false and misleading stories. ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that we KNOW that certain individuals are not adverse to posting false hype or FUD because of financial motivations. Readers of the investments boards shouldknow this and recognize it. When it starts to filter into the mainstream media, it does give one pause. Sorry for the late response, I posted my "gratuitous" remark while heading out the door for the evening. bp

To: Ted David who wrote (19203)	4/24/1999 2:18:00 PM
From: Diana	Respond to of 93625

Ted, Thanks for all you do on CNBC. Ya can't please everyone, but you do a great job. I don't see other broadcasters keeping such a public eye on the individual investor. Much less giving us credit for a job well done. You keep broadcasting. I'll keep listening. Diana