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.

Non-Tech : Iomega Thread without Iomega -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (2400)	10/20/1998 10:37:00 AM
From: Kevin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

the absolute need to have a four for one reverse stock split Yikes! I disagree - reverse splits are many times the "kiss of death" for stocks, resulting in the exact opposite as a typical stock split.

To: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (2400)	10/20/1998 10:47:00 AM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

Hi Jock. Where've you been? If you will allow me a slight quibble, I must note that you revealed the nature of the (_o_)'s "pay", not it's source. Any chance you might further enlighten us?

To: Jock Hutchinson who wrote (2400)	10/20/1998 10:58:00 AM
From: Hunter Vann	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10072

Mr. Reid, and I can tell you the source of his pay. It's not money. Rather it's very significant product "discounts" that Mr. Reid receives from one of his suppliers who would indirectly benefit from Iomega's demise. So in that sense he is "paid" to post negative information about Iomega Very ... Very ... Very ... interesting. So what about it Rocky Tock? Rebuttal? Your continued silence would be a clear admission of your guilt. Care to elighten us??