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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rupert1 who wrote (57580)	4/13/1999 11:20:00 AM
From: Carol Matthews	Respond to of 97611

damn, that was good. would you consider doing the interview? do you look like a wooden indian?

To: rupert1 who wrote (57580)	4/13/1999 11:41:00 AM
From: QuentR	Respond to of 97611

Victor, thank you. Now all they have to do is read the script, and now we do not have to have any anticipation over what will happen. Maybe Victor is our man to replace EP. Rudedog whould have to change his name.

To: rupert1 who wrote (57580)	4/13/1999 12:14:00 PM
From: JDN	Respond to of 97611

Dear Victor: Boy, you hit it RIGHT on the NOSE. Send it in to CNBC and tell them with that they can avoid wasting time on that interview and go on with interviewing strawberry pickers and the like. JDN

To: rupert1 who wrote (57580)	4/13/1999 12:20:00 PM
From: Lynn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Victor: Excellent posting. I think we better do a little digging into this one, though: >Q. Will there be restructuing, for example will you get the sack. > A. We are all dedicated to have COMPAQ achieve $50 billion revenues by the > year 2000. We are on track. You answer goes with what we were told last year. As I recall, the last time something was said about $50 billion, the wording was slightly changed from "by" to "during the year 2000." It might take me some time to find the news release I am referring to, but at time time it struck me as change that the wording had been altered. Maybe the change from "by" to "during" should have been taken as a hint. Lynn

To: rupert1 who wrote (57580)	4/13/1999 12:39:00 PM
From: Windseye	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Cudos, Vic... absolutely believable! Doug