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.
Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: lawdog who wrote (35063)5/9/2000 5:09:00 PM
From: Highway Jim  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 77397
 
What is CSCO doing in the after market? Thanks



To: lawdog who wrote (35063)5/9/2000 5:11:00 PM
From: The Phoenix  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 77397
 
What bet. You mean the bet you never accepted. LOL!

OG



To: lawdog who wrote (35063)5/9/2000 5:13:00 PM
From: SyncMan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 77397
 
There are 2 chances that there is no chicanery in the books: slim and none. I don't care if they say they have the Pope as their CFO and their auditor is Mother Teresa.

You know nothing about Cisco. This is very evident. Certainly some of the cleanest books in the world. So what is your proof. It would seem you are no better than a knight who said slander and then swore by it. (Midsummer's Night Dream).

I will agree with one sediment. If Greenspan really has it out for stocks (see Walmart call), then Cisco will also be hurt. On the other hand, these kind of financial numbers should make Cisco one of the rocks in the ocean that investor's can count on. (and watch when interest rates start coming down again!).

Cisco certainly did it's part. AGAIN. and AGAIN. and AGAIN.



To: lawdog who wrote (35063)5/9/2000 5:13:00 PM
From: username  Respond to of 77397
 
Am I reading this right? You decide to make a "bet" with somebody, no agreement that I see from him, and then when you decide you "win", you attack the man's character.

Lurking is more fun without that manure.



To: lawdog who wrote (35063)5/9/2000 8:23:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 77397
 
I assume that you have no intention of honoring our bet. I expected as much. Doesn't say much for your character.

He specifically said that you had to use Cisco's numbers and that you couldn't use your own accounting. I also noticed that you never replied to that particular message. I guess you just missed it.