To: Andreas who wrote (80552 ) 3/31/2000 10:20:00 AM From: rudedog Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Andreas - your statements are the ones that are flimsy. If you meant six days, you should have said so. A week is a week - since you posted after close on Thursday, a week would be thursday closing a week back... so I was responding to your original point exactly, and with my basis and assumptions stated, something you failed to do. You didn't rebut the fact (like so many cheerleaders on this thread). CPQ LOST MARKET SHARE 2 years and can point you to detailed discussions as far back as spring of 1998... CPQ has gained market share in many key areas where margins are good, and has lost market share in areas where margins are weak or non-existent. You are the one who wants to pick an area where the company's stated objective is to REDUCE overall revenue contribution on a percentage basis, and paint that as a weakness, when in fact it is good for the company and for us as shareholders (you are still a shareholder I assume??)Again, my statement as to what the general message of the cnet article is, is accurate. NOT accurate, that the reporter does not understand the difference between retail sales and consumer sales, forgot that a shift of 40% of sales to direct against overall growth of 10% implies a reduction in retail sales, and in general is an uninformed hip shooter who probably used to cover local high school sports events before he moved up to tech reporting. you did not rebut the truth, but merely tried to explain YOU have a lock on the TRUTH?? I think I offered opinions in contrast to your opinions... the truth is out there but you sure don't have a lock on it.
