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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JOHN W. who wrote (69431)	7/25/1999 6:04:00 AM
From: Robert Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

What do you like?

To: JOHN W. who wrote (69431)	7/25/1999 10:19:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Scott Ehrens, Bear Sterns and every other analyst projecting larger losses...Keep your rosy glasses Institutional selling is not done on AOL and AMZN John, What have I missed? I can't quite comprehend why AOL all of a sudden "jumped" into your post about AMZN. You talk about analysts revising losses on AMZN to be larger losses. This true although I did not see many firms downgrade the stock. On the other hand, almost every analyst upgrades earnings for AOL. I posted those on the AOL thread. Where are you headed with this? Glenn

To: JOHN W. who wrote (69431)	7/25/1999 1:45:00 PM
From: Tom D	Respond to of 164684

A lie on top of a lie. How Clintonesque! Here is the context for the FIRST lie: Olu posts #69250, saying that the rally fizzled. Then JOHN W, the protector of truth, posts #69252, claiming "2 more analysts are downgrading". Not "2 analysts have downgraded today". But 2 MORE analysts are downgrading. Olu Emuleomo (69245 ) From: Patric Von Swarengen Friday, Jul 23 1999 3:30PM ET Reply #69250 of 69452 Rally fizzled. I don't think anyone wants to hold this beast. Patric Von Swarengen (69250 ) From: JOHN W. Friday, Jul 23 1999 3:31PM ET Reply #69252 of 69452 2 more analyst are downgrading And now, JOHN W, weaving a tangled web, refuses to just say it was a sloppy or hastily-written post. Or admit it was a feeble attempt to intimidate and undermine a small recovery in the share price. Instead, lets add a second lie on the the first one, and insist that JOHN W never lied the first time and is not lying now to cover up the first. JOHN W really has no respect for the people on this thread. Tom D