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: ThomasJeferson who wrote (970)	11/26/1998 4:57:00 AM
From: taxikid	Respond to of 1254

analysts are allowed to tell you their "feelings" about a stock. that is different than a sleazebag pump and dumper that "gives you a hot tip"... happy bird day to all, even mr cramer.

To: ThomasJeferson who wrote (970)	11/27/1998 8:48:00 AM
From: James J. Cramer	Read Replies (9) \| Respond to of 1254

I only respond on these boards when someone suggests illegal activity on my part. WmGladstone has done so. He is wrong. What I wrote about was publicly available information from analysts who were in print saying IBM would disappoint. Mr. Gladstone, you impugn my reputation, you can expect that I will come after you. I want an apology and your comments withdrawn. If you dont want to apologize, you can be so kind to give me an address so I can serve you as this is libel in these here United States and I don't take it sitting down. I await your response.

To: ThomasJeferson who wrote (970)	11/28/1998 4:39:00 AM
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1254

The Disintermediation of the Peanut Gallery At first I was going to write a simple substantive reply -- Mr. Gladstone is pointing out that Cramer made a mistake three years ago (yawn, who cares). Then Mr. Gladstone tacked on a gratuitous unsubstantiated criminal accusation. Perhaps he will lose his account here; perhaps he will get served with a civil suit; perhaps he will puke up a backhanded apology. But to me, the interesting part is not the particulars of this case. Rather it's interesting for the illumination it sheds on the nature of communication in general and Internet communication in particular. Let's suppose, instead of www.techstocks.com, Silicon Investor was a call-in radio program. And that on a given night, the host specified that the topic would be James J. Cramer and TheStreet.com. There would be a ton of callers, positive and negative. If someone called up and wanted to denigrate Cramer for making a wrong call on IBM in 1996 (!), or buying Cendant after the fraud news earlier this year, or capitulating at the bottom in October 1998, whatever, I'm sure they'd get on the air. And they would stay on the air as long as they had something interesting to say with some facts and logic to back it up. But if they wandered off into bizarre diatribes or wacko smears ("I don't like his style, so he must be a criminal!"), the host would cut them off and get on to the next caller. That's the problem with this topic. Silicon Investor has enabled a public forum similar to a talk radio program, but it has disintermediated the host. And then the rock creatures come out. The Internet supports both moderated (mediated) and unmoderated communication. I think Gresham's Law will govern the evolution of unmoderated communication: puerile discourse will drive out thoughtful discourse. It happened to Usenet. I've heard that it's also happened to CB Radio. For that matter, it's happening to the Web. When I search for something, I use Yahoo. Yahoo has a layer of people who maintain its index files. Human beings at Yahoo mediate the Web that I see. I no longer want to see millions of low-quality hits from an unmediated service such as Alta Vista. So I'm in favor of the reversal of disintermediation. I would welcome someone to edit my incoming message flow before I saw it, who would discard articles from the rock creatures of the world. In an age of abundant information and scarce attention, I think this will be a popular position. I think in two more years, the proportion of moderated information on the Internet will go from "most" to "nearly all". And in that world, if Mr. Gladstone wants to get my attention, he'll have to write a more interesting article.

To: ThomasJeferson who wrote (970)	12/4/1998 3:40:00 AM
From: peter gucker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1254

>> Trading on tips is not legal, and they should not be used as the basis for recommendations in magazines because they are not reliable and not ethical<<>> Trading on tips is not legal, and they should not be used as the basis for recommendations in magazines because they are not reliable and not ethical<<Mr Cramer, I believe the entire statement is being blown way out of proportion by yourself and Mr. Gladstone First off, trading on tips is of course legal, every stockbroker in essence is giving you a "tip" when "imploring" you to purchase a stock. Every time a CEO on CNBC exhorts the merits of his company he is giving "tips." To me it is just a stupid statement and take that as a "tip".However I would never imply nor should anyone, that my statements are to be concluded as" tips" to anyone's mental Quotient...James, good luck with you law suit, and Mr. Gladstone remember "whoever controls the sea's controls the world." And of course hello Jeff......