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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hobie1Kenobe who wrote (59143)	5/29/1999 9:59:00 AM
From: re3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

waiting for the link from kis... he;s too busy golfing with his affluent buddies... I want to point out that there is a difference between thinking this stock will go down and playing it with shorts are puts...amazing how we can be right but lose money anyway...just ask some of the posters around here... H

To: Hobie1Kenobe who wrote (59143)	5/29/1999 11:10:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 164684

interactive.wsj.com; I know that I often post copyrighted material such as news stories. Therefore, I will forgive Barrons for the plagerism in writing an article that does not have one word or thought I did not write on this thread<G> Glenn

To: Hobie1Kenobe who wrote (59143)	5/30/1999 2:16:00 AM
From: -	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Exactly... I read this article carefully today. It has not a single new point. Must have been written over the past several months, finished up several weeks ago, then tweaked with a few newsy items to make it look more current. As someone observed though, they already missed the big internet correction - should have used it 3 weeks ago! Sure, they'll hit it for a few points this week. Big deal! What are investors who believe in the large-scale internet-based retailing model going to do now, go out and buy BarnesandNoble.com? What's really striking about the article is how far out on a limb they go with weak arguments, to try and trash AMZN, without offering any objective facts to counter all their negative points. Like claiming these Palm-sized electronic books are going to "knock out books" anytime soon. Give me a break! Another typically lame example: "Amazon is reporting their results for acquisitions without including goodwill, very unorthodox". Welcome to high-tech Barron's, have you East-coast dudes been on the planet lately? Cisco mastered this game, everyone in high-tech uses it, although FASB isn't pleased (thus the proposed "pooling of interests" controversial ruling) it's not unusual at all. The Barron's peice is such a routine practice, especially for tech stocks, where it's so obvious there are major short-sellers giving them info which they hardly look at, that it's amazing the financial pros still consider them as a credible source of information. Interestingly, in the same issue is Alan Abelson's (English major extrodinare) latest mega-Bearish, ominous warning telling us all the Dow's about to crash and burn and the tech stock world will end. He's been doing that since what, Dow 2,000? I'm not long (or short) AMZN. But I am offended by such unbalanced, junk reporting presented as a serious article. I would offer to counter it, as a known fact, that Bear-uns issues do indeed make for some excellent toilet paper, as suggested on this thread. Go www.thestreet.com! (no affiliation, but I find them a great counter to this kind of junk). -Steve