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.

Technology Stocks : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jimbo Cobb who wrote (60383)	5/3/1999 4:56:00 PM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Jimbo: Not that it matters anymore, but you came on the thread yelling buy LPGLY, as it then was, when it was $39, intraday. When I asked you was it wise to buy the stock given that it had risen $10 in one day, from a $29 close, and I knew nothing about it, you answered yes, that you had bought it that day at $35. This came after a few days when you were recommending it as a buy on its fundamentals, including its book value - not as a a trading stock. Everything else you say is revisionism. By trading LPGL I have almost fully corrected my mistake in paying too much for it. Now that I know a lot more about it, I believe it is a buy, preferably under $23. I think it needs to sort out questions about its liquidity in the LSE and NASDAQ. This exchange between you and me started when I commented on Friday that if anybody is made to feel worse about their losses in COMPAQ when you rub salt in the wounds by suggesting that you have a hot hand, and stocks are routinely increasing 100% on a daily and weekly basis, while money in COMPAQ is dead money, they should remember that two stocks you have recommended in the last two weeks, have lost 25% and 35% in a matter of a day two and faster than COMPAQ has lost money. I can now add that when you recommend a buy, what you really mean is buy, sell, buy, sell, buy, sell, in a few days. It seems butt-kicking not only depends on the greater fool theory, but also the agility of a can-can dancer.