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 : Osicom(FIBR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James Strauss who wrote (4712)	1/25/1998 12:12:00 AM
From: lisa	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10479

<<the shorts have alot to loose>> James, the shorts have already been killed, imagine if you had to pay 2.5 times the money to cover, if that happened to me id be as despirate as Craig. Craig angle, Blitz the thread with negative news, run off the new money and the weak hands. If Craig knew something for sure, he would let the stock run up while he gathered assetts to take a larger position, my take is Craig has seen the whites of Osicoms eyes headed North, if Craig were smart he will join the march!!!!!!!!!

To: James Strauss who wrote (4712)	1/25/1998 12:44:00 PM
From: Kimberly Lee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10479

Mr. Strauss, <<Now Barron's will have to prove the facts in their Libelous article... I don't think they'll be able to do it...>> The rest of your post sounds reasonable, but this assertion is absolutely ludicrous. The reality is that Barron's does not have to prove anything. The burden of proof, in a case like this, rests heavily on the plaintiff. In other words, Osicom must prove, with a preponderance of evidence, all of the following elements: 1. The article in question contains false information about Osicom. 2. As a direct consequence of the false information, Osicom suffers provable actual injury/damage. 3. The journalist(s) of the article authors the false information with ACTUAL MALICE. Actual malice, in a case like this, means that the writer publishes the information with the clear foreknowledge that they were false. In libel cases against a public figure or a public company, the court does not penalize the press for honest mistakes or mere carelessness -- a concept that most of the laymen don't, and probably never will, understand.

To: James Strauss who wrote (4712)	1/25/1998 1:49:00 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 10479

<< The English newspaper that printed a retraction of their first FIBR article was probably a pawn in the hands of Shorts... Now, Barron's will have to prove the facts in their Libelous article... I don't think they'll be able to do it... >> I see. Poor little Osicom. They haven't done anything wrong and the whole world is ganging up on them and you longs. It's all a huge conspiracy by that London paper, Barron's and "professional shorts" who at one time shorted over 4 million shares of Osicom. These publications and us "professional shorts" just picked poor little Osicom out of a hat and decided to randomly target it for no reason. Yeah, and I suppose you know who the person was on the grassy knoll as well.

To: James Strauss who wrote (4712)	1/25/1998 2:06:00 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10479

<< The shorts have a lot to lose... >> How do shorts have anymore to lose than longs. Explain that to me. << ... So I can understand their desparation as FIBR is beginning to break out of an intermediate term downtrend... >> But I take it the longs weren't desperate for the last year and a half when FIBR was in a huge downtrend from 20 to 2. You guys were just patient and loyal while FIBR slid, yet FIBR takes a little bounce and all of a sudden us shorts are desperate. << They are going to loose big money... >> We'll see about that. So far so good... << ... They saw the first wave of buying come suddenly... It must have scared the pants/skirts off of them >> Which wave was that? The wave from 2 to 6? Sorry guy, but I didn't ride that wave. I rode the wave from over 8 down to the 3's. Then I packed up my surfboard and waited patiently for the the next wave. I knew I could count on FIBR to give me one last ride of my life. << So, we can expect anything from the shorts in their last desperate attempt to plug the buying dam before it bursts...>> You really do have a distorted view of reality. If shorts were really "scared" of the huge explosion upward why wouldn't they just cover? Do you know anyone who shorted at 2? I know I couldn't short FIBR at 2. My guess is anyone who shorted this company did so above 5 so they are doing just fine. On the other hand, anyone who bought FIBR during most all of 1996 and more than half of 1997 is underwater. Only if you stumbled on this company lately are you doing ok. So why don't you tell me again who has the most to lose and who is running scared...