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: Loki who wrote (80165)	3/24/2000 3:05:00 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

I don't believe them to be true, no. Doesn't seem to make sense in light of recent upgrades and other items that could be viewed as "positives". If this WAS true, I doubt certain analysts would have put their necks on the line. As for the Clintons, I was referring to the rumors that spread when Bill was running in the 1982 Dem Primary. His denials of affairs, and having all that ultimately catch up to him, only exacerbated the problem. His best response? Either "yes, it's true" (and leave it at that, dealing w/the consequences) or simply refuse to comment (as so many other politicians have done). I stated in a later post that it's really more like dealing with terrorists holding a hostage...as the hostage, you want to get out of the situation, but you know that dealing with them only exacerbates the problem (anyone living in Mexico is familiar w/that problem). I realize that other companies take action of some sort when issues like this arise. That doesn't make it right, or even the best thing to do. It just means they do it. Sometimes it's meaningful, sometimes it's not. Yes, I do believe that CPQ management recognizes they suffer from a credibility problem. If they don't they are bigger fools than any of us think. I don't believe they are fools at all, but are trying to manage a very large supertanker that has broken loose from its moorings in rough seas. Even the best of managements will have credibility problems in a similar situation. Sometimes they survive and move on....other times they get Pfeiffered. Given that, you could understand why a comment in a situation like this is meaningless. Even IF MC stepped forward and said "it isn't true", then he'd have to step forward every time CPQ takes a shot. Lately, that would've posed many problems for him. As a result, working from the assumption that the rumor is false (and I believe it is), it makes no sense whatsoever to say word one.