Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.ipad > #36180 > unrolled thread

Chicken Little

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.ipad

Contents

  Chicken Little Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-02 12:12 -0700
    Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-02 19:21 +0000
      Re: Chicken Little android <here@there.was> - 2014-06-03 08:42 +0200
    Re: Chicken Little jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-06-03 08:14 +1200
      Re: Chicken Little Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2014-06-02 17:03 -0400
      Re: Chicken Little Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-03 09:11 +1200
        Re: Chicken Little jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-06-03 09:54 +1200
          Re: Chicken Little Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-03 18:39 +1200
            Re: Chicken Little jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) - 2014-06-03 22:09 +1200
    Re: Chicken Little erilar <drache@chibardun.net.invalid> - 2014-06-02 16:56 -0500
    Re: Chicken Little Michael Vilain <vilain@NOspamcop.net> - 2014-06-02 19:07 -0700
      Re: Chicken Little Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-02 19:35 -0700
        Re: Chicken Little Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-06-02 20:54 -0700
    Re: Chicken Little android <here@there.was> - 2014-06-03 08:41 +0200
    Re: Chicken Little Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 06:24 +0200
      Re: Chicken Little Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-05 22:12 -0700
        Re: Chicken Little FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 04:07 -0400
          Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 13:49 +0000
          Re: Chicken Little Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-06 08:28 -0700
        Re: Chicken Little FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 04:11 -0400
          Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 13:52 +0000
            Re: Chicken Little nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-06 11:32 -0400
              Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-06 15:44 -0500
              Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-06 15:47 -0500
        Re: Chicken Little Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-06 10:23 +0100
          Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 13:53 +0000
            Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-06 15:42 -0500
              Re: Chicken Little Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:15 +0200
                Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-07 14:31 +0000
                  Re: Chicken Little JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-07 13:29 -0400
                Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-07 16:10 -0500
            Re: Chicken Little Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:15 +0200
              Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-07 14:20 +0000
              Re: Chicken Little "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 11:46 +1000
                Re: Chicken Little JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-08 14:13 -0400
                  Re: Chicken Little "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 07:26 +1000
                    Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-08 20:47 -0500
                      Re: Chicken Little "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 14:53 +1000
                        Re: Chicken Little JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-09 13:12 -0400
                          Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-09 13:04 -0500
                            Re: Chicken Little Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-10 09:34 +1200
                          Re: Chicken Little "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-10 06:43 +1000
                  Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-08 20:45 -0500
        Re: Chicken Little Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-06-06 08:03 -0500
        Re: Chicken Little Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:12 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#36403

On 2014-06-06, FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Even better...  I found the "Apple Death Knell" counter... an oldie, but 
> a goodie.
>
> http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/10/29.5.shtml
>
> "It happens every few weeks: Someone new jumps on the bandwagon loudly 
> proclaiming that Apple will soon be dead. It's been happening since the 
> early 1980s, and still Apple, and its doom sayers, keep chugging along. 
> We decided that it would be interesting to collect these stories, 
> prognostications, predictions, and premature eulogies in a sort of 
> testimonial of buffoonery, and we are calling it The Apple Death Knell 
> Counter.
> We shall keep a running total of the number of times that Apple has been 
> declared dead or dying, with links to each one (whenever possible), the 
> date it was published, and the person who so blithely set upon the path 
> of being utterly wrong. With luck, we'll eventually get back to the 
> primordial Death Knell, whose peals have rung on long past their normal 
> life spans."

It's kind of a shame they didn't keep it going after 2002, as I'm sure
there would be many, many more entries by now.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36413

In article <bvdvc7F8gltU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> It's kind of a shame they didn't keep it going after 2002, as I'm sure
> there would be many, many more entries by now.

it hasn't stopped. here's one:

<http://www.cnbc.com/id/101509203>
  "They only have 60 days left to either come up with something or they
  will disappear," said Trip Chowdhry, managing director at Global
  Equities Research.

that was from last march and those 60 days have passed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36429

On 6/6/14 10:32 AM, in article 060620141132466029%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <bvdvc7F8gltU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> It's kind of a shame they didn't keep it going after 2002, as I'm sure
>> there would be many, many more entries by now.
> 
> it hasn't stopped. here's one:
> 
> <http://www.cnbc.com/id/101509203>
>   "They only have 60 days left to either come up with something or they
>   will disappear," said Trip Chowdhry, managing director at Global
>   Equities Research.
> 
> that was from last march and those 60 days have passed.

Whattaya expect from someone named "Trip"?

Wanna bet that HE has disappeared since that dumbassed statement?!?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36430

On 6/6/14 10:32 AM, in article 060620141132466029%nospam@nospam.invalid,
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <bvdvc7F8gltU2@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
>> It's kind of a shame they didn't keep it going after 2002, as I'm sure
>> there would be many, many more entries by now.
> 
> it hasn't stopped. here's one:
> 
> <http://www.cnbc.com/id/101509203>
>   "They only have 60 days left to either come up with something or they
>   will disappear," said Trip Chowdhry, managing director at Global
>   Equities Research.
> 
> that was from last march and those 60 days have passed.


AND I see why: It's NBC - the "No Body Cares" network...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36395

In article <050620142212226272%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <6ig2p9ht5l290li6p0qh98t8na4slhp01k@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
> <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Chicken Little is screaming that Apple is doomed because it didn't
> > > introduce any new hardware at the WWDC keynote this morning.
> > 
> > I'm sure geeks may feel that way, but Apple is in the mainstream now, and
> > mainstream, ordinary users don't need to see new hardware every six months.
> > Or
> > even new software, for that matter.
> 
> That screaming is from "Wall Street analysts" and tech writers for
> magazines, newspapers, and web sites.  Geeks and ordinary users don't
> care all that much.

So who gives a monkey's, then?

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36404

On 2014-06-06, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <050620142212226272%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
><michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <6ig2p9ht5l290li6p0qh98t8na4slhp01k@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
>> <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > > Chicken Little is screaming that Apple is doomed because it didn't
>> > > introduce any new hardware at the WWDC keynote this morning.
>> > 
>> > I'm sure geeks may feel that way, but Apple is in the mainstream now, and
>> > mainstream, ordinary users don't need to see new hardware every six months.
>> > Or
>> > even new software, for that matter.
>> 
>> That screaming is from "Wall Street analysts" and tech writers for
>> magazines, newspapers, and web sites.  Geeks and ordinary users don't
>> care all that much.
>
> So who gives a monkey's, then?

Certainly not Apple customers, nor most of the true long-term investors
of AAPL. And those are the ones that matter most.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36428

On 6/6/14 8:53 AM, in article bvdvevF8gltU3@mid.individual.net, "Jolly
Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2014-06-06, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> In article <050620142212226272%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
>> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <6ig2p9ht5l290li6p0qh98t8na4slhp01k@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
>>> <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Chicken Little is screaming that Apple is doomed because it didn't
>>>>> introduce any new hardware at the WWDC keynote this morning.
>>>> 
>>>> I'm sure geeks may feel that way, but Apple is in the mainstream now, and
>>>> mainstream, ordinary users don't need to see new hardware every six months.
>>>> Or
>>>> even new software, for that matter.
>>> 
>>> That screaming is from "Wall Street analysts" and tech writers for
>>> magazines, newspapers, and web sites.  Geeks and ordinary users don't
>>> care all that much.
>> 
>> So who gives a monkey's, then?
> 
> Certainly not Apple customers, nor most of the true long-term investors
> of AAPL. And those are the ones that matter most.

Yep. Ten years ago this month I first invested in AAPL at a pre-split
adjusted price of sixteen bucks and change a share - and held on. It is my
retirement fund and the best thing I could have done to my investments.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36451

George Kerby writes:

> Yep. Ten years ago this month I first invested in AAPL at a pre-split
> adjusted price of sixteen bucks and change a share - and held on. It is my
> retirement fund and the best thing I could have done to my investments.

Unless the bottom falls out of AAPL. Never put all your eggs in one basket.
Been there, done that, and now broke.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36467

On 2014-06-07, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> George Kerby writes:
>
>> Yep. Ten years ago this month I first invested in AAPL at a pre-split
>> adjusted price of sixteen bucks and change a share - and held on. It is my
>> retirement fund and the best thing I could have done to my investments.
>
> Unless the bottom falls out of AAPL. 

Well, let's see... AAPL shares were around $32 in June of 2004 when he
says he purchased them. AAPL has not gone anywhere near that low since
then, and is currently at $645. On June 3rd, Canaccord Genuity
reiterated AAPL as a buy at 710.0. I don't get the impression AAPL's
long-term investors are in any critical danger.

> Never put all your eggs in one basket. Been there, done that, and now broke.

Good advice.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36478

On 14-06-07 10:31, Jolly Roger wrote:

> says he purchased them. AAPL has not gone anywhere near that low since
> then, and is currently at $645.

I predict a major crash of AAPL on monday. Will drop below $90 at
opening. Something about Tim Cook having a bad hair day.


:-) :-) :-) :-) :-)


BTW, the text of the stock split is interesting.  They announce that
shareholders of record on June 2 gets the stock split. Later on, they
also admit that anyone buying shares on open market between the 2 and 9
will also get the 6 additional shares.

I suspect this may have to do with employees who get new shares between
the 2 and 9, those may not have the stock split. Raw deal !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36496

On 6/7/14 6:15 AM, in article 42t5p9pl4suphrl9ggej7f7vir3147ph64@4ax.com,
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:

> George Kerby writes:
> 
>> Yep. Ten years ago this month I first invested in AAPL at a pre-split
>> adjusted price of sixteen bucks and change a share - and held on. It is my
>> retirement fund and the best thing I could have done to my investments.
> 
> Unless the bottom falls out of AAPL. Never put all your eggs in one basket.
> Been there, done that, and now broke.

Naw. AAPL is only about a third of the total. Next highest is MMM and the
rest in various mutual funds from value to growth. That, and several Limited
Partners in Real Estate and Petroleum areas. But, there has been NOTHING
approaching AAPL in Growth and it is becoming a Value holding and is headed
for the Dow 30 after the 7:1 split. Also, I feel that it will be paying at
least 2.75% dividend in the next couple of years.

Concerning, "all in one basket", someone should have told that to my BIL. He
let some "ANAL-list" broker put everything he had in a speculative Biotech
firm that was supposed to 'Viral' with a newly developed treatment for
Smallpox called ST-246. So bought into it at 2 -3 bucks a share before the
drug was released. Speculation and, consequently, the price increase. When
it hit $12 I suggested that he sell SOME of it. NAW, he was holding out for
$15 - $17 range. We ALL begged him to at least a quarter of it at $14+!
Nope, he'd have NONE of that. Well, a little problem developed with the
company. It seemed that they had forgot that they had partnered with another
outfit in development of the drug. So before they got the "for sure" US
Government contract that my BIL thought would make him a millionaire, his
company got it's ass sued by it forgotten partner. The stock plummeted back
down and now trades between $2 and $3.50. In that 10 year period he has
nothing gained. Truly a Sad Sack Situation...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36450

Jolly Roger writes:

> Certainly not Apple customers, nor most of the true long-term investors
> of AAPL. And those are the ones that matter most.

Are there any long-term investors these days?

As long as Apple continues to produce products like the ones I've already
bought, I will continue to buy them, period. It's just tiring to hear all the
chatter, be it positive or negative.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36466

On 2014-06-07, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jolly Roger writes:
>
>> Certainly not Apple customers, nor most of the true long-term investors
>> of AAPL. And those are the ones that matter most.
>
> Are there any long-term investors these days?

I know *plenty* of people who have owned AAPL for decades. Yes, there
are long-term investors these days.

> As long as Apple continues to produce products like the ones I've already
> bought, I will continue to buy them, period. It's just tiring to hear all the
> chatter, be it positive or negative.

Same here. : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36506

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote 
> Jolly Roger wrote
 
>> Certainly not Apple customers, nor most of the true long-term 
>> investors of AAPL. And those are the ones that matter most.
 
> Are there any long-term investors these days?

Corse there are. 
 
> As long as Apple continues to produce products like the ones 
> I've already bought, I will continue to buy them, period. It's 
> just tiring to hear all the chatter, be it positive or negative.

No one is holding a gun to your head and is forcing you to read it.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36568

On 14-06-07 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:

>> Are there any long-term investors these days?
> 
> Corse there are. 

A few years ago, the Wall Street Casino analysts were making self
serving predictions of AAPL going over $1000, the sky is the limit etc
etc. This attracted a lot of speculators for a quick buck.

Then, once the casino analysts reduced their exposure, having cashed in
on the speculation, they started to issue bad news about AAPL, and the
stock tanked from over $700 down to below $400. The speculators left.
And that left longer term investors.

So AAPL is much more of a blue chip stock these days than a speculative
one. However, it is still very affected by the news cycle. Wall Street
Casino Analysts could drive the price down with some bad news about
Apple so they could buy in at a low price, and then let it rise again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36583

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Are there any long-term investors these days?

>> Corse there are.

> A few years ago, the Wall Street Casino analysts were making self
> serving predictions of AAPL going over $1000, the sky is the limit
> etc etc. This attracted a lot of speculators for a quick buck.

> Then, once the casino analysts reduced their exposure, having cashed in
> on the speculation, they started to issue bad news about AAPL, and the
> stock tanked from over $700 down to below $400. The speculators left.
> And that left longer term investors.

> So AAPL is much more of a blue chip stock these days than a speculative
> one. However, it is still very affected by the news cycle. Wall Street
> Casino Analysts could drive the price down with some bad news about
> Apple so they could buy in at a low price, and then let it rise again.

Sure, but that's a quite separate issue to whether there are still long term 
investors. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36593

On 6/8/14 4:26 PM, in article bvk2p9FgrkdU1@mid.individual.net, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
> 
>>>> Are there any long-term investors these days?
> 
>>> Corse there are.
> 
>> A few years ago, the Wall Street Casino analysts were making self
>> serving predictions of AAPL going over $1000, the sky is the limit
>> etc etc. This attracted a lot of speculators for a quick buck.
> 
>> Then, once the casino analysts reduced their exposure, having cashed in
>> on the speculation, they started to issue bad news about AAPL, and the
>> stock tanked from over $700 down to below $400. The speculators left.
>> And that left longer term investors.
> 
>> So AAPL is much more of a blue chip stock these days than a speculative
>> one. However, it is still very affected by the news cycle. Wall Street
>> Casino Analysts could drive the price down with some bad news about
>> Apple so they could buy in at a low price, and then let it rise again.
> 
> Sure, but that's a quite separate issue to whether there are still long term
> investors. 
> 

You are talking to a wall of doubt, feared by bullshit. It is really SAD...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36599

George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> Are there any long-term investors these days?

>>>> Corse there are.

>>> A few years ago, the Wall Street Casino analysts were making self
>>> serving predictions of AAPL going over $1000, the sky is the limit
>>> etc etc. This attracted a lot of speculators for a quick buck.

>>> Then, once the casino analysts reduced their exposure, having cashed in
>>> on the speculation, they started to issue bad news about AAPL, and the
>>> stock tanked from over $700 down to below $400. The speculators left.
>>> And that left longer term investors.

>>> So AAPL is much more of a blue chip stock these days than a speculative
>>> one. However, it is still very affected by the news cycle. Wall Street
>>> Casino Analysts could drive the price down with some bad news about
>>> Apple so they could buy in at a low price, and then let it rise again.

>> Sure, but that's a quite separate issue to whether there are still long 
>> term
>> investors.

> You are talking to a wall of doubt, feared by bullshit. It is really 
> SAD...

He's not that bad. He just has some silly ideas at times, but not all that 
often.

I agree with your other comment about gambling and investment, but
he does have a point about how many of those in the industry operate. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36608

On 14-06-09 00:53, Rod Speed wrote:

> I agree with your other comment about gambling and investment, but
> he does have a point about how many of those in the industry operate. 

Institutional speculators have the ability to sway stocks. And they
toyed around with AAPL a lot in recent years, but has calmed down since.

Consider when a large Wall Street org leaked news that iPhone sales were
down because they saw some 3rd party report of Apple lowering component
purchases from Samsung.  They conviently forgot the well known news that
Apple was shifting purchases away from Samsung to other supliers and
made Apple look bad and drove AAPL down quite a bit.

Once the AAPL share price got to their liking, the suddently stopped the
endless stream if similar bad news and the stock price has since risen
at a natural pace without much speculation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36612

On 6/9/14 12:12 PM, in article
5395eaeb$0$58771$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-06-09 00:53, Rod Speed wrote:
> 
>> I agree with your other comment about gambling and investment, but
>> he does have a point about how many of those in the industry operate.
> 
> Institutional speculators have the ability to sway stocks. And they
> toyed around with AAPL a lot in recent years, but has calmed down since.
> 
> Consider when a large Wall Street org leaked news that iPhone sales were
> down because they saw some 3rd party report of Apple lowering component
> purchases from Samsung.  They conviently forgot the well known news that
> Apple was shifting purchases away from Samsung to other supliers and
> made Apple look bad and drove AAPL down quite a bit.
> 
> Once the AAPL share price got to their liking, the suddently stopped the
> endless stream if similar bad news and the stock price has since risen
> at a natural pace without much speculation.
> 

'Shorts' take advantage of the human greed syndrome. I don't trade like
those bastards and stay in for the long term and buy on those dips. Now that
AAPL has done a 7 for 1 split, it will become more psychologically appealing
to the small investor, so expect it to cross over the Franklin Factor level
this month, if not sooner...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.ipad

csiph-web