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 : Osicom(FIBR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rodrigo Rocha who wrote (7880)	8/10/1998 2:31:00 AM
From: Afaq Sarwar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10479

This poster on Yahoo has a way of getting to the bottom line: -------------------------------------------------------- Bison_87 Aug 10 1998 12:51AM EDT The barrons update says nothing about Par or Osicom being guilty of anything. One convicted felon says ex-director barry witz told them how to cheat on reg S. Hmmm. Lets trust him. So lets get this straight. Par knows someone who knows someone who plead guilty to securities fraud. A very heavy and thorough investigation, with people talking to get lighter sentences, pleading guilty and not one shred of evidence that Par or Osicom is involved, much less guilty. You would think someone would have pointed the finger at them by now and tuned over the goods - if there were any. Seems to me that this is old news which has tuned out good for Osicom - not one shred of evidence of wrong doing anywhere. - 41 evaluators of the gigumux with some small orders filled. - many design wins with net+arm. - IQX has struggled, but that should improve with the new windows interface. - sell if you have to sleep better. Things will get better fo r the longs. -------------------------------------------------------- Afaq Sarwar

To: Rodrigo Rocha who wrote (7880)	8/10/1998 6:04:00 AM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 10479

>> The fact is that nothing in the article states that either Par or Osicom has committed a crime or is under investigation. << You can infer alot about a person's character or integrity simply by knowing the people they associate with. CEO's of public companies shouldn't associate with criminals or associates of criminals. >> What is clear is that Barrons is mad at Par for the suit. << Couldn't it just as easily be said that Par is mad at Barron's for the article? So what? >> What I don't see you mentioning is that the Sunday Standard in London which wrote a similar article in the UK had to apologize << Had to aplogize? Or chose to? >> because they could not support the allegations with facts << Could not support? Or didn't want to bother spending time/expenses supporting? >> I must also point out that whoever was leaking info last year concerning the investigation was breaking the law << What investigation? What was leaked?