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 : 3Com Corporation (COMS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (11471)	12/3/1997 8:03:00 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 45548

<<It is clear that the problems that were made know were priced into the stock. >> As Cramer would say... Wrong! << Crawford's only chance of doing well with his short was likely today. >> Wrong again, Glenn. I still have all my shorts (sold the puts). Looking to short more!

To: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (11471)	12/4/1997 3:13:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 45548

Glenn, re The initial fall was caused by the "weak hands" bailing out. This was in answer to Martin's comment: why do you think this thing did the freefall from 55..? Glenn, anyone who sold at $55 is looking like a genius in my books, while anyone who opened long positions in that range is looking literally like a poor market timer. In all fairness, I think you are wrong to berate those who sold at the optimum time as "weak hands". In hindsight, I bet you that every single person on this board would have either sold long positions and/or went short at $55, knowing where the price would be going from there. So the "weak hands" label just doesn't jive. DK