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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tae Spam Kim who wrote (7612)	5/26/1999 12:27:00 PM
From: Rande Is	Respond to of 57584

OT> Tae, nice free advertisement. My point was that there ARE people out there who are good stock pickers.. I never said there were not good stock pickers in cyberspace. You misunderstood the challenge. The challenge was meant as a wake up call. . . directed to those paying 100, 400 or even 1000 dollars per MONTH to services giving picks. The point being, even picks from such gurus are not as accurate as those given HERE on the HOME thread. I am not concerned with who picks what where. I already know who, what and where. I see street.com and others going public to the tune of billions of dollars. . .yet I can never find picks that make me money there. I see SI leaders charging unbelievable amounts of money, yet they ask me for MY picks, DD, insight and opinions and ask to use my posts. . . One day, I wake up and realize that they are making money from high subscription rates from my hard work. . . and accuracy. . .and I haven't made a nickle from giving out such information. Thus the challenge. So you are saying then, that you are doing nothing more than exploiting my "challenge" for the benefit of some free advertising for your newsletter to the many that read this thread regularly? . . .but you had no intention of putting your reputation on the line to PROVE your claims? How tacky. Tae, I say this with respect. . . . Please refrain from advertising your company here. . .I take this VERY seriously. . . I am all set to go head to head and rip into your newsletter's historical accuracy. I made that clear in my original challenge. . . there was nothing there for you to misunderstand. . . THAT tells me that you did NOT misunderstand at all, but USED me and MY TIME by APPEARING that you were taking the challenge, when all you REALLY wanted was to try to lure some readers over to your website. Readership must be getting awfully low. . .understandable. . .you either have something people want or you do not. . . .but surely you can think of some ways of marketing it that is less stressful to me and less boring to our readers. Please refrain from further references to your company. . . as your provocation for the purpose of advertising your company was RUDE. Rande Is

To: Tae Spam Kim who wrote (7612)	5/26/1999 7:34:00 PM
From: Rande Is	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

OT> Apology to thread and to Tae for the Rooster-like feather fluffing. . .I felt as though his crossing my line drawn in the sand via the "challenge" was a calling out of sorts. . .the challenge is purposely meant to intimidate some and upset a few. . .that's ok. . .I'm loaded for bear and must maintain my refuse-to-back-down posturing. . .but rest assured I have carefully considered the reasons for and consequences of my actions. Tae didn't realize what he was digging himself into when he was seen as challenging the big-feather-fluffing-cock-a-doodle-dooing-ready-for-a-cock-fighting-rooster. . .and thus got caught in the crossfire. He's an OK guy that has contributed here and we wish him the best in all his endeavors. There is another [unrelated to Tae or anyone that has ever posted on our thread] war behind the scenes that I am trying to flush out into the open. . . but I will spare the details [please don't ask]. . .and please forgive the rampage. . .but again it serves a greater purpose, so it is what it is. Rande Is