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: KevRupert who wrote (105394)	6/24/2000 10:51:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

I in no way inferred you were the person I was talking about. Sorry I posted directly to you. No apology necessary. I just was not sure. I agree with what you stated. This thread seems to be my main home. Sometimes Amazon goes way up and people I never saw before come out of the woodwork but when it really drops, well it is even worse. Glenn

To: KevRupert who wrote (105394)	6/25/2000 7:15:00 AM
From: KeepItSimple	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>It would have been nice to see intellectual comments about why it was >going to zero prior to a significant decline, not after the decline has occurred I don't know which AMZN thread you've been reading, but around here we've been predicting Amazon's demise for years. We've even detailed why, and how. The problem is, nobody here is a big shot wall street pimp, so we're not very likely to appear on CNBC. And if our opinions arent on CNBC, the vast majority of people will never hear them. It may appear our negative comments came out of nowhere, but they've been here all along.

To: KevRupert who wrote (105394)	6/25/2000 11:14:00 PM
From: tonyt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>Now that amzn has some bad news, they come on here and talk about how >the stock is going to zero. What bad news? Absolutly nothing has changed with Amazon. The Lehman analyst was commenting on the Q1 cash flow, as if it was released on friday. There was nothing in his comments that wasn't already known. And Meekers comments of a soft Q2 and Q3 also should have been known. Its amazing that this generated 51 million trades. I don't know why anyone is suprised, Amazon's business model of making 95c for every $1 spent is well known, and was applauded as genius as a method of building a 'brand' name. What was really 'new'?

To: KevRupert who wrote (105394)	6/26/2000 11:41:00 AM
From: Eric Wells	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

It's the people that come on the thread and bash amzn as if they have been short the stock from the high. advalorem: You're out of line here. I've never seen you post to this thread in the past - but there have been many people posting to this thread who have been negative on AMZN for years (myself included). Sarmad, to which you refer, is a very well-respected poster on this thread. Sarmad's negative comments on AMZN are right on the mark - and always have been. If there are "cockroaches" (your word, not mine) that are writing about AMZN, it is the wall street analysts that continue to write positively of the precarious financial position in which Amazon currently find's itself. -Eric Wells