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 : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: option007 who wrote (6870)	6/6/1999 12:17:00 PM
From: Blue Snowshoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

OK, you don't seem to know what history or libel means, do you know what recent means? Produce a RECENT link where Allen or his firms say GNET is worth 90 bucks or give it a rest. You just don't get it do you? Things change. Produce a recent link to back up your talk or kindly put a sock in it. RECENT do you know what that means? BLUE

To: option007 who wrote (6870)	6/6/1999 12:34:00 PM
From: BillCh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

The public record is more specific than that - the price was struck when the shares were about 87 , when the internet sector was widely cast as over-valued (eg by Bill Gates). So 90 was almost no premium over 87, and the chance of a decline in price was seen as high. As it happens, the GNET price stays up by itself! On Friday, sentiment swung the other way and cast the internet sector as undervalued. I'm glad the huge parcels of shares we're talking about changed hands without adversely affecting the market

To: option007 who wrote (6870)	6/6/1999 12:44:00 PM
From: Dr. Zax	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28311

Option 007: You have posted 16 messages on this board since midnight. Mine will be the 34th total message posted on this board since midnight. Take a chill pill. You will not change anyone's convictions in one day. The most effective way of influencing people on this board is to produce facts, in coherent and intelligent posts. I see you have only joined SI 7 days ago. It is exciting to be able to post with all of us here... but remember for every member, there are 10 lurkers out there. Aside from discussing stocks (which is by far the most important function of these boards) we are also acting on a stage. Performing. Playing a game of give and take in front of a live audience. Please have respect for these viewers and combine your posts into fewer, more inclusive posts. Please do not stop letting us know your opinions. A board is best and most fun when there are differing opinions. Especially when those people are staunch believers in those opinions. On the one person point: I must say that if I was putting my faith in one person when investing in this stock, that person is Russell Horowitz. Since it is not one person... it is mainly the developers of the software (hi guys and gals), Russell, PA, Bill Fleckenstein and all the members of the board that I am putting my faith behind when INVEST in this stock. Averaging down is dangerous if a company will go away and has no fundamentals. GNET will not go away in the near future and has fundamentals. About some facts: .07 earnings is for this quarter. Just assuming no growth that is .28 for the year ahead. This quarters estimates are already .09 ... my guess is we will come in with .11 Also: 30% institutional buying is quite a bit, even on a good day Inst buying on AOL is 45-50% Dr. Zax

To: option007 who wrote (6870)	6/6/1999 1:27:00 PM
From: Keith Howells	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28311

You are the same person who keeps posting the same stuff over and over again on the GNET thread over at Yahoo. You claim to have no position in this stock so why do you care who pays what for it? Just a great humanitarian I guess. Go back to Yahoo and post your crap over there. I hate these little dweebs who keep posting over and over thinking they can manipulate people to either buy or sell.

To: option007 who wrote (6870)	6/6/1999 1:28:00 PM
From: Sarkie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

option007 Just curious? What is it that compels people like you to deliver the truth, only as you see it, to those less perceptive than you. You admit you have no position in this stock. Dr. Zax, so astutely pointed out the errors of your contrarian opinions, and yet you feel driven to deliver your message, over and over and over again. Why? Is this just for the sake of argument or, are you that lonely of a person you invent ways to converse with others? If you really have no position in GNET, what is your motive? Sarkie

To: option007 who wrote (6870)	6/6/1999 1:43:00 PM
From: Sarkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28311

Oh one more thing. This message, although on the BIDS thread referring to another person, seems to apply to you as well. Message 9994156

To: option007 who wrote (6870)	6/6/1999 7:34:00 PM
From: MarX	Respond to of 28311

Ref. post is unbelievable. I don't think I can find a single that is correct. Let's start slowly - It's not Mr. Russell, it's Mr. Horowitz. You say the price of $90 was "based on negotiation and study by their private firms. WRONG!! The price was negotiated by PA and RW. The process of getting a "fairness opinion" is one of the great jokes of all time. It's sole purpose is to line the pockets of the Investment Bankers and consultants who charge ridiculous fees to approve and affirm the fairness of a price negotiated by two parties immanently more qualified to determine a fair price. After all the definition of a fair price is what a qualified buyer is willing to pay and what a qualified seller is willing to accept. I challenge you to come up with any situation in which these leaches (the "fairness opinion" boys) ever changed a negotiated price. I do agree with you that Mr. Horowitz could have handled Mark Haines question better. How's this - Paul Allen was willing to pay $90 per share of the GNET prior to his own investment. Upon finalization of the Agreement, GNET is a considerably different Company. If PA thought it was worth $90, wouldn't you be willing to pay considerably more as a result of the infusion of Cash which increased stockholders equity by approximately 18 fold (and that's only on the first half of his investment).