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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: richard surckla who wrote (50374)	8/20/2000 12:12:09 AM
From: Scumbria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dick, Re: Rambus does not MAKE ANYTHING I see that you are starting to catch on! Scumbria

To: richard surckla who wrote (50374)	8/20/2000 4:30:49 AM
From: Barry Grossman	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 93625

Good post from TMF: boards.fool.com Author: waikikiguy Number: of 12411 Date: 8/19/00 10:03 PM When folks pretend to be journalists and state opinions as facts, some other folks may soon think that a judge ought to decide if the second group of folks "relied" on those opinions to make investment decisions, according to informed sources. I do not know if any of the following is true or not... but according to legal-community insiders, a group of disgruntled RMBS shorts is meeting to decide if certain unnamed pretend journalists are liable for the losses that have been incurred by the potential plaintiffs. One potential plaintiff, who spoke only on the condition of annonymity said, "If those pretend journalists had not told me that RMBS was no good, I never would have shorted the stock at 62; I relied on the expertise of those guys, and now I have lost my whole portfolio and my house." Another person close to the law firm that may be handling the potential litigation said, "It may be time that pretend journalists are brought to time for the FUD they are spreading." Yet one more unnamed lawyer close to the possible litigation asserted, "If we can show that the pretend journalists knew that what they were saying was untrue, all we then have to do is show that innocent shorts relied on those untruths; and, we then will have our multi-million dollar judgment against the pretenders." None of the folks described above were available for comment. Good luck next week.