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: James J. Cramer who wrote (972)	11/27/1998 4:21:00 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 1254

Oh, get real. Looks like you were wrong, and somebody noticed, and that's what you're upset about. But hey - none of us are perfect. I was wrong myself, once.

To: James J. Cramer who wrote (972)	11/27/1998 4:33:00 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Respond to of 1254

cOUSIN SHORTY replies: JJC!!!!! AHA AHA AHAHA AHAHHA AHAHA!!!!!!! KIck it, DUDE! THat is what I LIKE!! I LIKE you, jjc, and youRe parTNERS and YOUR WIFE and EVERYbidy!!! AS A matter ofFACTion, we HAVE reNAMEDTHE PORT Airlock on the SPACecraft "THE GLAdstone HONorary AIRLock" in YOUR HONor!!! AHAHAHA!!!!! WE TAke no GUFF WHEN we STrut our STUFFF!!! COME on UP to THE SPACECraft for some TEXas style BBQ anD WATch the olD PORT AIRlock DO itS ThANG!!!! YOUr DA MAN, JJC, TLC anD ME back You up ANYIme!!!!!!!!!! SEE yOU on CNBC, dudE!! AHA AHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!! cOUSIN SHORTY #Subject-20947

To: James J. Cramer who wrote (972)	11/27/1998 6:37:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 1254

Cramer, get a grip! This is a message board full of this sort of thing about what they refer to as MMs. You and I have talked frequently, although you won't recognize my alias--and I sincerely hope no one else does. These are opinions and thoughts. It is a freewheeling group of sites, complete with contributors who have something to share and contributors who do not. You have a great franchise. Don't cheapen it with getting all irate over things posted here or even comments by "The Fabulous Market Babe"--hello, why bother? Your franchise should dictate ignoring this sort of thing or merely responding in polite, professional terms. And lawsuits are so totally non-Web mentality. Please stop wasting your time and money. Your franchise is good, just go for it.

To: James J. Cramer who wrote (972)	11/27/1998 8:43:00 PM
From: mr.mark	Respond to of 1254

" I don't take it sitting down." hahahaha! time for the blowtorches, grenades and bayonets, huh jimmy? what a piece of work you are. defend thy honor, oh fool!! " you impugn my reputation, you can expect that I will come after you." lol! oh please. this reminds me of the famous dylan line... "you say you lost your faith, but that's not where it's at, you had no faith to lose, and you know it!" go back to from where you came, oh blustery one.

To: James J. Cramer who wrote (972)	11/29/1998 4:17:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1254

james, you seem a weee bit sensitive. did you say to short ibm? if so, i didn't see any slander b/c you already said that the call was based upon a tip. so, you'd better hope i'm not on that jury ;-) all he said was don't issue recommendations off of unverifiable tips. seems reasonable. if he is being reasonable then what are you being? please don't respond as i'm not suggesting you've done anything illegal. ;-)

To: James J. Cramer who wrote (972)	11/29/1998 5:05:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 1254

james, i misread what the guy said. he did insinuate bad things and that is inappropriate. excuse me while i adjust my contacts ;-) nobody believes you are trading on insider info. however, take the advice about basing your advice on "tips" fwiw. good luck. btw, upside is limited from here. that is my tip and don't trade on it ;-)

To: James J. Cramer who wrote (972)	2/12/1999 8:56:00 PM
From: ThomasJeferson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1254

JJC: I have a question for you -- you know what it is. In the February 1995 Column in SmartMoney, you wrote that Rexon insiders had snapped up more than 100,000 shares of the stock. The actual number was 25,000. Rueling purchased 5,000 on December 9, 1994, and Genessi purchased 10,000 on December 13 and another 10,000 on December 14, according to their form 4 disclosure statements on file with the SEC. So the question is, why did you write that more than 100,000 shares were snapped up by Rexon insiders? Of course I know the answer and may post it on the thread. If anyone else can figure it out, my congratulations. It took me a year and a half. For thread participants who are not aware of this situation, Rexon was one of the four pour orphans which Cramer recommended in that column. Rexon went bankrupt in September 1995.

To: James J. Cramer who wrote (972)	3/25/1999 9:10:00 PM
From: ThomasJeferson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1254

Cramer: According to Mark Haines of CNBC, trading on take-over rumors is a violation of the SEC's 10b-5 rule per the Supreme Court opinion in US vs O'Hagan. The reason is because the right to benefit from the knowledge of a pending but secret take-over is reserved exclusively for the owners of the bidding corporation. Also, Powell's footnote 13 in Dirks vs SEC says that non-public information should not be traded on if it is obtained by stealth (unless the information is disclosed). You wrote a column in the September 15, 1997 issue of the New York Observer about receiving a take-over tip from a broker. You wrote that you did not make a trade because his information was not reliable, and you also wrote about "Fifteen years of trading on rumors, during the greatest period of takeovers ever...." Sure, everyone does it and everyone gets away with it. Does that make it legal and ethical?