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 : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scrapps who wrote (9206)	11/14/1997 3:42:00 AM
From: Dee Jay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

(Big Sigh)...Scrapps, I named no names because it clearly was unnecessary...and I tacked the post onto Dwight's because the graph provided the opening, not a means of pointing the finger at him. Dwight, I would be as pi**ed had those same events occurred in conjunction with an intended purchase of my own so I can relate to your feelings. Competition can be rough - it's not a gentlemen's game out there. Sometimes lines get overstepped and rightous anger ensues; if you feel dirty pool was played I wouldn't argue with you given those circumstances. It's entirely possible others might be able to cite similar tactics ascribable to USRX's mgmt. although I know of none. But the recently revealed allegations of channel stuffing and sleight of hand with the numbers as indicated in a mere footnote, those things have an unsavory smell and in this case it's stockholders who got shafted by their own management, not competitors. Some can't bring themselves to believe it; perhaps more information will surface soon so as to make clear what actually happened and how much Benhamou knew before completing the merger. If COMS had been hornswoggled then some shareholders could rightfully claim they'd been damaged by the force-feeding of the distribution. Such stuffing does not result in pate'...just people getting goosed. Dee Jay