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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Manhattan Minerals (MAN.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Bartlett who wrote (2449)	6/23/1999 12:18:00 PM
From: Jeff Dickson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4504

Mark, Doesn't make much sense to me either, especially when her downside is higher than the 52 week low. Nice that your kick-off message #00001 on the thread is appropriate again, isn't it? :) cheers -jeff

To: Mark Bartlett who wrote (2449)	6/23/1999 2:34:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

If we get nothing more , she may get a 1.00 to 1.50 on the downside, but IMO it is not worth the risk of what the upside is .... seems like a ridiculous risk/reward scenario to me. Why any shorter would think these odd are good is beyond me. While I agree I must point out that your post would have felt quite at home in the IPMCF thread. Many people screamed at how the shorts were idiots because if the worst happened the shorts would only make a couple of bucks a share and that the sky was the limit on the up side.

To: Mark Bartlett who wrote (2449)	6/23/1999 4:34:00 PM
From: Ron Struthers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4504

Mark sometimes a short is just a long in disguise, trying to shake the tree for cheap stock. Ron