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: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (7817)	2/28/1999 5:14:00 PM
From: Senthil Sankarappan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

>>I was short at 10 and change. I closed out at five and change. Then I was long at five and change. I sold in the high eights. I repurchased at six and 5/8s. Those posts are on this or the other thread.<< Thanks. You again prove my theory that this stock is not for long termers. This is for traders to make money. Apparently not everyone will be good traders and lot of people lost money in this stock big time by being long for too long. I bet even you also not sure of your big buy at 6 5/8 by the way this stock keeps going down every day. Finally, it does no matter if Rockey lies in products or anything. He may be the mad man out there and his predictions about IOM could be based on some astrology or not. He has been correct in the direction of the stock. yes. it is hard for me to accept this since he is in the opposite side of me but truth can be bitter :-< Now, i will appreciate if you all spend your time and energy in discussing about what's wrong with IOM in the past few years and what can change that going forward. Who knows?? IOM management can learn a thing or two from those discussions. So, if you are a true long, you would channel your energy in that direction than trying to change the Rockies and Joels of the world who may not exist if IOM's management does the right things. Thanks -senthil

To: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (7817)	2/28/1999 10:40:00 PM
From: BeachBum	Respond to of 10072

>>>>>>>>>>>> SEN S. OT OT OT <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Jock... Does this mean he really is a techno-pop guitarist <G> Again they avoided the question and the bet, no one likes a (welcher). They did accept the bet So Sen your saying we need to manage the company from the chat thread is this correct ? Man, I knew I should have pent more time on the CPQ thread, to think I could've stopped that last drop. IOM isn't the only tech stock sliding lately. BB ^-^-