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 : PERFUMANIA.COM . . PRFM . . .FOR LONGS ONLY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ViperChick Secret Agent 006.9 who wrote (1599)	2/1/1999 11:28:00 AM
From: moby_dick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2489

Cross-post in case anyone is interested. To: moby_dick (7908 ) From: moby_dick Monday, Feb 1 1999 11:23AM ET Reply # of 7919 As far as the Rande-sponsored PRFM thread, I think that any LONG who lost money because of the touting there may actually have a case against Rande. He continued to not only discourage but attempted to suppress contraindicating positions in PRFM. He repeatedly tried to funnel any kind of comments not conducive to his LONG opinion of the stock to the "other" PRFM thread. This may have caused newbie and other unwitting LONGs to believe that the stock was a safe investment at $12 and $13 and caused them to buy at those inflated levels. Now we know they lost a bundle by doing so. He better not PM to me with his idle threats again. Moby.