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 : America On-Line (AOL) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KAF who wrote (27608)	8/1/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: Sonny McWilliams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 41369

I DON'T MIND when CNBC is repeating rumors. I like to know why a stock goes up or down. But I DO MIND when they come out with rumors that can be squashed or substantiated in a NY minute, like I stated earlier. And in this case Barrons is a regular on CNBC and therefore this rumor on AOL COULD have been checked out so therefore repeating the rumor without any substance WAS disgusting. If they had checked out this rumor I would not mind. This rumor came out around noon and there was plenty of time in this case to check it out before it was reported at around 3:30 in the afternoon. If they DID ask Barrons and got NO response, then maybe it's alright. But then it should be questioned if you want to have Barrons on further on CNBC. The representative of Barrons has no problem talking about all other junk when asked. I AM sending an email to CNBC. But the harm was done. Not only did AOL go down so did my other internet stocks after this rumor was reported by CNBC. I would not be surprised IF we now DID see an article pretty soon after we vented like this. I am sure CNBC and Barrons are fully aware of this controversy. NBC, CNBC and MSNBC all have the bottom line in common. GE. So whenever a competitor is the target of a late day rumor, it does make you wonder. All this is just a bump in the road, hopefully, as far as I am concerned since I call myself a long term investor of AOL now. But I'd better not see another big sale by AOL's insiders pretty soon. You know the saying: You can fool some people some of the time etc. 9% is a hefty chunk no matter how you slice it. And 25%, if true, by another is even more. I am sure that that guy owns no more than S. Case does. And this is not the first big sale within a year. Anybody followed the how do you do when M. Dell sold 4% of his holdings? You would have thought he sold out the company. Well, I think I will quit harping on this subject. I did a lot of repetitive opining in this post. ggg. Sonny