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.

Non-Tech : Knight/Trimark Group, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chi-X who wrote (2212)	7/11/1999 10:39:00 AM
From: Patrese	Respond to of 10027

Naturally, since the rumor started before Cramer reiterated it on his website. Regards, Patricia

To: Chi-X who wrote (2212)	7/11/1999 11:13:00 AM
From: Joseph Silent	Respond to of 10027

Chi...... I was watching the drama all day. First came the "fly-on-the-wall" rumor (a site I don't know) which started the "stop" gobbling by the MMs (MLCO may have led the charge). It said something vague about an SEC investigation. Yes, Cramer's article did come later (this time saying "negative Barron's article")....and reinforced the sell-off. It was not a responsible thing for him to do, considering that his post was (intendedly?) ambiguous. Observe that our world is news-driven. People "in-the-know" buy/sell days/weeks before news hits major publications like Barron's. What was scary about Friday's news was that it seemed to have been augmented with the weird selling action we've been seeing over the past two weeks. A weak confirmation? I don't know. I did read it that way because of NITE's recent behaviour. Given how news works, its not unreasonable to believe that the news in Cramer's article, or Cramer's article itself, was available to some segment of the public before 2:59. The general public is always the last to know, which is why its called "NEWS"! This is the mess we are in, and we have to learn to deal with it. Just how, I have yet to figure out. :) Joseph