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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rande Is who wrote (3170)	2/10/1999 12:07:00 PM
From: Vicrobi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

Rande: Once again you have stated your views superbly. Vicki

To: Rande Is who wrote (3170)	2/10/1999 1:57:00 PM
From: Wolff	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

I just time warped back through PRFM thread...here is my response. To orgainized gangs: The PRFM thread was this on the bull side. No one diputes this, in fact it even made the cover of SI the big days. I have read comments by people on the 1/27 and 1/28 before the superslide, a lot of warning warning. I can barely read it, good people were saying get out and the rational. This is not a gangster manuever. Sure the Shorters came in, but we were already there. I was in way before the shorts came over to look at over valuation of PRFM. I've got a hard time believing that you were not advocating buying and selling postions. Please be intellectuall honest. Read your post Message 7573040 You can not be such an advocate then divorce yourself from the potential negative outcomes. Certainly there was no guarentees or anything but reasonable people would reasonable conclude that you were saying DON'T SELL. Credit and Blame go together you can not take one by itself. I thank you for your efforts, but you seem like a guy involved in an accident whistling in the wind and saying that you had nothing to do with it. I think it was an accident, but you were involved. Please accept that. To yours and all of ours privacy. We all want, need, demand that! Anyone attacking rights of privacy should be ashamed. Read the above message again, as you seem to be escalating the "war" you refer to. But on privacy you attack A@P for wanting to insure privacy in a conference. Isn't this just bullshit on your part. Isn't this just a way of attacking. WE ALL DEMAND PRIVACY. We will rally around anyone who attack anothers privacy. But Rande would a resonable man say that having security on conference is shameful, who is they themselves concerned about it. NO. I think your argument is hipocritical. Don't you agree? Rande says >I do not post my opinions throughout cyberspace. . .spamming whomever >gets in the way. . .I post here. Oh my, remember I just time warped, look at your post Message 7590625 Not only do you proclaim you are about to spam, but you solicit support to do so. Rande you ask people to post opinion throughout cyberspace. Are you saying you would post news without opinions, if the retort is that me thinks not. Rande I don't see you on high ground, but I don't see you on low ground either, I think you have many valueable contributions. But the evil band of shorters is neither evil nor a band. Have you ever seen the movie Forbidden Planet, written by Shakespeare take a good look at the evil thing attacking you.