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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45239)	5/3/1999 2:54:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

If he goes on there to insult you, he is in the wrong. I am merely saying that what he said in your previous exchange on that particular issue seemed to make sense, and therefore remains unsettled in my mind, while this was clear cut...

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45239)	5/3/1999 3:00:00 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Just because you all here make excuses for any conservative does not mean that you are stating "facts". Actually, Denise, the conservatives here do not make excuses for anyone. There are many disagreements among conservatives here. For example, I am pro-choice, anti-Kosovo involvement, pro equality, anti-Clinton. Many on this board disagree with me on some of these issues. However, I find that ALL of the liberals here are of one voice, being led like lemmings by the dem party machine.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45239)	5/3/1999 3:02:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

By the way, a lot of people mostly listen to their broker's advice, rather than following closely the progress of their stocks. Just as I pointed out to JLA that he shouldn't call you a liar just because he couldn't envision you making a killing, since you could have a had a large stake from diverse sources in the first place, I don't find your grounds for calling him a liar conclusive. He obviously spends most of his time on these threads, and he said that he just lurked from time to time, and is rarely moved to comment because he doesn't have much to contribute. I do not assume that he is correct about you, but you are calling each other liars, after all....

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45239)	5/3/1999 3:51:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Just because you all here make excuses for any conservative does not mean that you are stating "facts". Talk about overlooking the obvious, I almost missed this. After months of making excuses for Bubba? For a woman, you sure pack some cojones!

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (45239)	5/3/1999 3:57:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Hell, Michelle (hmmmm-- a rhyme). I own lots of stock in companies that I really haven't much of a clue about. A have a general idea about them, but certainly no great amount of knowledge. For example a few years ago I bought a little Canadian gold company for pennies. Had little idea about the company and gold mining in general. I was given basic information about the sector, was shown its fundamentals (on the books the company was worth far more than it traded, likely due to the gold bear that was enhanced by the Bre-x debacle). So I bought about 200000 shares of it. The stock is trading at about $4 now, so relatively speaking I have done pretty well on it. I'm waiting on a particular announcement and when my people tell me the thing is in I will review it and then in some capacity move on. Do I really know what is happening with the company? Nope. HAve I been following it very closely? Nope. Would I discuss it with you in any event? Nope. Why do I own it? None of your friggin business. But if you were to ask me about the company, I could only speak in generalities about it. I guess this means I'm lying. (Dear me. What is it with California?)