[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CSI questions



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links

Well....
the clean data is clean, but the software doesn't do much for me! I'm still
(not) using version 2.1.0 - it was a big dissappointment.... Hey look at
that! The new version just showed up! So we'll see if it's more effective.

Sorry for the skepticism regarding operating hours - I would be pleased if I
was wrong. Guess I'll go find out. Obviously you're a loyal fan but they
didn't answer my email, and I think that's lame. It's a natural reaction.

rgds,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: Manning Stoller <mstoller@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Phil Lane <patterntrader@xxxxxxx>; Omega List <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: CSI questions


> CSI is alive and well. Today, Monday, I received their new UA version 2.2
.0
> which includes their stock scanning software.
>
> I don't understand your unfair remarks about their afternoon and weekend
> availability. Most likely, you have never dealt with CSI. It's a good
> company with the best database in the industry IMHO.
>
> I have been a continuous customer of them since 1979 - that's 21 years.
> Continuous is the operative word.
>
> Their toll free number is 800-272-4727
> Web site: www.csidata.com
>
> Don't be so hard on those whom you haven't tried. CSI has a good
reputation
> in the industry.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Manning Stoller
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Lane [mailto:patterntrader@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 6:32 PM
> To: Omega List
> Subject: CSI questions
>
> Hi everybody,
> I sent CSI an email asking about their new improved stock scanning
> software - something I thought I had heard about somewhere - but there was
> no reply. This may not be a good sign. Anyway:
>
> 1. Is anyone using it or does anyone know anything about it?
> 2. What's their 800 number?
> 3. Are they open in the afternoons and/or weekends when people need to
work
> on stuff like this? (wouldn't count on it).
>
> Respectfully,
> Phil
>
>