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 : BAY Ntwks (under House) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: getgo234 who wrote (3159)	12/15/1997 7:47:00 PM
From: StockMan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6980

Jay and all, Let the incompetant fools be. Fools/idiots such as the motley fools should be ignored. Stockman

To: getgo234 who wrote (3159)	12/15/1997 7:47:00 PM
From: jkb	Respond to of 6980

I don't have a number for IR. Try the general number first - 800-231-4213. -Jay

To: getgo234 who wrote (3159)	12/15/1997 7:51:00 PM
From: rupert1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6980

All: As one who e-mailed Fool and demanded a correction, I beleive that its "response" is intellectually dishonest. It is they who have been artful in wriggling off the hook of the plain and straightforward meaning of their statement that COMS and ORACLE and BAY had just warned that they would not meet expectations. How does the Fool know what Bay told this or that analyst in private? If the Fool is implying that it has confirmed with the DLJ analyst, how does it know that he was not mistaken. Perhaps he is covering his misundersanding of the Bay information. What we know for certain, is what Bay told everyone on the record. And it is not what the Fool reported. It is the opposite. I would suggest that everyone e-mail the Fool again and/or e-mail Bay and ask is the Fool statement about Bay's double-dealing with information true. If not, what will Bay do about it? Vepoc