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.

Pastimes : James Cramer Skeptic Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: HairBall who wrote (339)	6/25/1998 10:42:00 AM
From: Tae Spam Kim	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1254

Larry, I wouldn't bash AOL and look for agreement, Cramer is a big investor in that stock. :) James, are you still writing for GQ? What are your thoughts on 3COM (COMS)? Is it going to turn around, now with the 10 million share buy back and time to digest U.S. Robotics inventory issues? -Tae Kim oursquare.com

To: HairBall who wrote (339)	6/25/1998 11:30:00 AM
From: Jock Hutchinson	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1254

Nonsense. My questions were proper, timely, and responsible. I wasn't conducting voir dire. I just felt that Mr. Cramer would provide spontaneous straightforward answers for which he is famous. I had respect for Mr. Cramer's apparent work ethic, energy, and most importantly, self-effacing honesty. However, surely there must be a quid pro quo. Cramer asks outrageous questions designed to reach the quintessence of an issue, so what's good for the geese is good for the gander. Or is that proposition too intellectually challenging for your rapidly diminishing grey matter. Cramer knows why I asked about sexual preference. The question was not meant to demean Mr. Cramer or any associate. Although he was not in tune with my political views, Harvey Milch was a trailblazer of true integrity. However, I can understand how an increasingly sclerotic intellectual eunuch such as yourself would "leap" to such a conclusion. So let me dumb down a little (actually a lot). The market ain't bean bag, and my question of Mr. Cramer was just as valid as questions pertaining to Bill Agee's and Mary Cunningham's affair at Bendix ten years ago. Hold on. Let me dumb down a little more, pull out the Crayolas and draw you a nice pretty picture so that you and your fellow double digit IQ crowd can understand. When a person's sexual conduct may have a potentially strong effect upon a stock that I own, you can be darn sure I will ask the question I asked. Moreover, if sexual conduct questions can be asked of our great country's leader, then such questions can asked of anyone else with lesser power. Mr. James Cramer: You ducked the question. You are a coward. You revel in asking the tough embarrassing question, but you cringe from answering same. Little Jimmy, it's time to grow up and overcome the childhood trauma that big Johnny Callison inflicted upon you. Me a Punk? Oh my! Surely this sycophantic creed from a renown market savant such as yourself must be cherished. Not quite. You represent the proliferation of aging one-step-too-slow smarmy self-righteous apostles who mouth all kinds of shibboleth while longing for the glory days when value plays were simply determined by low PEs. Time to wake up Rip and spend less time with your buddy "Cliff" over at the local IHOP and more time discerning what is really happening. Otherwise, you and your tag team partner, the always gregarious Michael Metz, will become to Value Investing what Bill and Hillary are to integrity. You have missed a major paradigmatic shift in investor psychology that has correctly recognized Internet market niche leaders as long-term value plays. AOL is a long term value play. Don't ask me. Ask Mr. Armstrong whose flirtation with AOL was rebuffed.