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 (5022)	12/10/1998 9:01:00 PM
From: s. bateh	Respond to of 10072

JD is back...maybe we close up tomorrow...always worked with his buddy.....ha ha ha .....good to have you back JD....

To: BBG who wrote (5022)	12/10/1998 11:29:00 PM
From: Naggrachi	Respond to of 10072

<<IMO Bateh's shilling is a great contrarian indicator... the more she shills the lower IOM goes... Suckers...>> So, let me guess, how much money did you lose in IOM? In a way, frustration is building on this side also, however, being negative does not get one anywhere. Keep in mind, she's only reporting number's that are no different than those that influence the market as far as where the economy is headed. Surely you're not suggesting Bateh's making up those numbers are you? Take her numbers for what they're worth, you've been reading her posts for more than a year now and the Q reports are not that far as far as volume (business) is conerned, no? I don't take them beyond their informative value and I definately don't make investing decisions based on them, either. What's wrong with reporting market trends? The sad thing about all this is that CSCO is about to pass IOM in terms of $$ value in my portfolio and I've held CSCO a year later after IOM and only have a fraction of shares in comparison. Furthermore, the pointcast chart of IOM does not look good at all. IMO, we maybe head to $5 area for key support. Zead