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 : 3Com Corporation (COMS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David E. Taylor who wrote (39969)	2/26/2000 8:55:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 45548

He cites some Harvard Professor of investment banking for the statement that the "selected institutional investors (AOL, NOK and MOT) will reap a large windfall from the immediate appreciation of the stock in the market place". Seems he's intimating a criminal conspiracy to defraud share holders. What benefit would there be for COMS management to give these companies such a "gift"? Nonsense.

To: David E. Taylor who wrote (39969)	2/26/2000 9:06:00 PM
From: Roy Glen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 45548

David, Good response. I think there are two clues to the writer's motivation. First, his remark about the New York Times "slobbering" over Palm's IPO. Would we be even talking about the Baron's article if it was another me-too endorsement of Palm ? Probably not. His article is a product, and he is trying to position it against a big rival. Secondly, it was clear from the CNBC piece that he is English. They don't have many (any ?) leading high tech companies over there, and Psion (which, in my opinion, should be pronounced "pission") is their great white hope. Frankly, I believe many people on this thread are too complacent about Palms continued dominance, but his article did nothing to advance intelligent debate. Roy

To: David E. Taylor who wrote (39969)	2/27/2000 9:29:00 AM
From: geekland	Respond to of 45548

TOUCHE, Mr. Taylor! The drivel that Barron's published has SO MANY glaring deficiencies - in logic, tone, fact... Why not send a copy of your well-stated msg to the dinosaurs at: editors@barrons.com? Even though their publication has been rendered more & more irrelevant in recent years they DO have a wide readership and a lot of folks still hang on their every pronouncement. With that type of circulation comes a requirement for ACCURACY & INTEGRITY, both of which are lacking in the 2 articles this weekend. IMHO, they should hear about it... THANKS for all of your substantial and insightful posts on this board. Content such as yours is what makes SI surpass the wild & wooly freebie message boards.