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.

Non-Tech : Iomega Thread without Iomega -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BBG who wrote (2103)	10/9/1998 9:38:00 AM
From: Tom Carroll	Respond to of 10072

J.D., >You've just posted 5 posts in a row dealing solely with Rockhead... >you even gave a run down of his positions on IOM.... I think you >should take a look in the mirror when chastising others for >responding to RR... even though your posts weren't to RR they >were about RR one is just as bad as the other IMO... I beg to differ. My posts were not about the person you mention, whose name I won't invoke. They were about violations of the guidelines to this thread. I only restated his litany as evidence for my contention that Linda need not read his posts. I said absolutely nothing about the validity of those posts, nor have I violated the guidelines for this thread. In addition, I knew full well that I would be posting a zillion of these little posts, for this one day only, and did so anyway as a means of underscoring just how rampant the violations of the guidelines are. >By the way RR is the only one that's been right about IOM in >over a year... He's a pain in the *ss but got to give him some >credit... You have every right to value his posts and, if you think they are a good guide to investing, to act on the basis of their contents. I wish you luck. And of course you have every right to engage him in a discussion of his ideas. On this thread, though, that's not what we're about. Please do that somewhere else. This thread is for people who choose to conduct their analysis of IOM's situation without benefit of his contributions. Those who play here should observe the rules for this particular playground. Thank you. Cheers, Tom (long IOM)

To: BBG who wrote (2103)	10/9/1998 12:26:00 PM
From: Herb Fuller	Respond to of 10072

J.D. Re:>>>By the way RR is the only one that's been right about IOM in over a year <<< J.D. , Looking at the unmentionable one's posts below , one would question your above statement . ===================================================================== To: +Naggrachi (53165 ) From: +Rocky Reid Monday, Apr 20 1998 9:20PM ET Reply # of 57669 >Well, your buddy cRocky, shorted IOM at $6.5 about two weeks ago a<< You should try and stay up on the news. I am short twice- once at $7 1/4, and last week at $7 1/2 for an average of $7 3/8. exchange2000.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To: +sheila rothstein (53233 ) From: +Rocky Reid Tuesday, Apr 21 1998 1:34PM ET Reply # of 57669 Just checked in from running around all day so far, and discovered I exchange2000.com had hit my stops and bought to cover at $8 1/8. IOM is certainly running today. Even the absolute dregs can't help but go up in this market. exchange2000.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- Herb