SI
SI
discoversearch

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
Intel at $200
An SI Board Since October 1996
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
282 8 0 INTC
Emcee:  Burt Masnick Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
132 After reading about the other laws on the books regulating securities fraud , jim kelley-10/31/1996
131 jim: re your "If you do not like lawyer pass a law restraining them."exhon2004-10/30/1996
130 By the way, the California state government does a great job of analyzing the pDon Knowlton-10/30/1996
129 I totally agreed with your point. I think we should vote NO for 211. spsubhash Patadia-10/30/1996
128 Re: I need to get on to other matters besides 211 I respect your right to bothjim kelley-10/30/1996
127 Wrong, I respectfully disagree with your comment about Clinton supporting PropRob Rob-10/30/1996
126 You're excused! You're also very correct!yard_man-10/30/1996
125 I hate to bring this thread down to low level, however, in the interest of acurwilliet-10/30/1996
124 Re: Corporations frequently use hired guns for their defense. These hired gunjim kelley-10/30/1996
123 That's rubbish, and the evidence backs it up. Company X in a high-flying inRichard Forsythe-10/30/1996
122 jim: re your: The companies are attacking the plaintiffs attorneys as greedy wexhon2004-10/30/1996
121 James: You were right on in your response to John re exponential 533MHz procesexhon2004-10/30/1996
120 jim: Prop 211 is designed to enhance and enlarge lawyers contingency fees and exhon2004-10/30/1996
119 Steve: To all: 52% opposed to 211 with 25% undecided. No-on-211 raised more exhon2004-10/30/1996
118 Here in Germany Intel is still considered to be a good buy, as the PC-market seJorg Schulte-Braucker-10/30/1996
117 Jim Re: <If INTEL or any other company keeps its information accurate theySTEVE SMITH-10/30/1996
116 <<Why do the executives fear 211? Do they have a guilty conscience?>&gBarry Grossman-10/30/1996
115 The following is an excerpt from a recent BusinessWeek editorial regarding CaliPhilip Merryman-10/30/1996
114 Re:Barrons on Prop 211 If INTEL or any other company keeps its information acjim kelley-10/29/1996
113 Let me see if I can make this easy: Intel is to VHS as Exponential is to James R Mohr-10/29/1996
112 I'm surprised Barrons takes that stance. There are two key things in 211 thRichard Forsythe-10/29/1996
111 RE: Prop 211 Barrons has an article this week on Prop 211. The article says tjim kelley-10/29/1996
110 Thanks Philip for info link..I Recognize that demand for server intel processorGARTH GILBERT-10/27/1996
109 Fidelity or not, there was something strange in the sequence of events that ledcody andre-10/26/1996
108 Why should I care about a proposed 300 MHz processor from Intel when a 533 MHz John Haumesser-10/26/1996
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News