SI
SI
discoversearch

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
James Cramer
An SI Board Since December 1998
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
766 33 0
Emcee:  cicak Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
591 when you get thru 102,3,4,201, etc.. write back taxikid-6/1/1999
590 He's going to be famous. He will be the one they point at and snigger abouDavid W. Taylor-5/28/1999
589 cramer is an act, and one that's wearing quite thin on many. as more time mr.mark-5/27/1999
588 Cramer doesn't seem to learn from his past mistakes. In a previous message Adam Weiner-5/27/1999
587 What I was saying was that stock prices reflect peoples' future expectationStocker-5/27/1999
586 since when is rain right.. or should it be wainright? maybe trying to bait a retaxikid-5/27/1999
585 the stock prices are based on today, 'cause today is when the price changestaxikid-5/27/1999
584 Nobody every said Cramer doesn't have anything positive to say about other Adam Weiner-5/27/1999
583 There goes Cramer, picking on those analysts again.....never anything positive Stocker-5/27/1999
582 Not for long. And the stock market values the future, not today.Stocker-5/27/1999
581 sorry but barron's as a weekly is still portable.. meaning it can be read ataxikid-5/27/1999
580 subscribers. mr.mark-5/26/1999
579 Cramer recently wrote an article about after hours trading it. He argues againsAdam Weiner-5/26/1999
578 arf ! arf ! arf ! :) markmr.mark-5/24/1999
577 >> Thing is that Barron's, WSJ etc. had little competition a few >Adam Weiner-5/24/1999
576 Thing is that Barron's, WSJ etc. had little competition a few years ago, noStocker-5/23/1999
575 >> Barron's is quickly becoming irrelevant in an online world Well, Adam Weiner-5/23/1999
574 Given that Cramer's rarely had anything positive to say about Barron's Stocker-5/23/1999
573 Another jibe against Cramer in this week's Barron's "Up and Down WAdam Weiner-5/23/1999
572 All the .com's seem weak right now. Same thing happened this time last yStocker-5/21/1999
571 is <i>anyone</i> on this board happy with the way TSCM is performinmr.mark-5/21/1999
570 "Last word" - ok, if you insist.... <i> People don't pay fStocker-5/21/1999
569 Re: <Go ahead and give me one more reply so you can have the last word grok-5/21/1999
568 >> A few years from now, this past year's numbers will just be a blipAdam Weiner-5/20/1999
567 >> I don't suppose you have any stock picks. And expose myself to pAdam Weiner-5/20/1999
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News