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 : 3Com Corporation (COMS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: joe who wrote (20557)	8/13/1998 6:47:00 PM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 45548

>>I agree with that part...kind of a standard answer. I tend to trust Eric B., but I may be wrong. Let's talk. I have some beach front property in Nevada..... <g> >>1) Before the USRX/COMS merger, was Eric B. asked if there were buyouts in the future? Does he have a history of denying these? Don't know - didn't actively follow COMS at the time. I imagine that it may have been discussed on this thread if he did one way or the other at the time. Mostly, I don't think there's a buyout because of the poison pill. My understanding is it would make COMS very expensive, and who would pay a lot for COMS (lots of on the network "edge" type equipment). Any thoughts? Forget the poison pill. Cordis had one - J&J bought 'em. I think USRX had one - COMS bought 'em. The poison pill only makes a hostile takeover difficult, and is designed to protect the senior management team, not the shareholders. If the Board does not negotiate in good faith, the buying party can join with the common shareholders and have the poison pill removed. Anyway, COMS is too big for a hostile takeover. It's a non-issue. >>1) I notice the old posts don't have a "View reply to this message".I guess this feature was added later in SI's history. Correct. The older messages are not fully indexed, nor are their record numbers necessarily in true chronological order. In the early days, the site was much more based upon the ordinal sequence number within each thread. >>2) Were you able to look up that post by some sort of quick search method? Lots of times, I want to look up an old post a few months back, but don't have to time to click through each one. Was there an easy way you did that? Nope. I remembered gloating about it (by posting a link) at the beginning of the thread that was started right after the merger was announced. I dug up the thread, and voila! Don't expect full historical searches any time soon - it's not particularly easy to index over 5 million messages. That's a quote from the proprietor. >>I always thought Scrapps was the quiet type: Scrapps used to be the news hound. But, as he mellowed out Moonray took over sleuthing duties.

To: joe who wrote (20557)	8/13/1998 8:11:00 PM
From: mr.mark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 45548

" I tend to trust Eric B., but I may be wrong." joe, can we talk? this is regarding your above statement about mr. benhamou, and the post from david lawrence. david, like me, read that you trust mr. benhamou. david then informed you of some beachfront property he owns in nevada. tsk tsk. that david. such a kidder. isn't he too much? anyway, joe, i wanted you to know that it is i, not david, who has the best, no, make that the very best beachfront property in nevada! you'll definitely want to talk with me for all your real estate needs. there's even a few small swampland parcels in florida that i know you would love... trust me <gg>