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
USRX
An SI Board Since November 1995
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
18024 14 0
Emcee:  damniseedemons Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
17624 jmac, <<The deal stinks. It stunk from the beginning and still stinks. UFred Fahmy-4/23/1997
17623 Thank you for letting me know the amount of the penalty. The deal stinks. It jmac-4/23/1997
17622 On instinet when I left the office at 5:10 NY time, there was a 49 bid for 4000thomas hayden-4/23/1997
17621 <i>Alan, I disagree with you that USRX would be 80 right now without the Glenn D. Rudolph-4/23/1997
17620 <i> Also, the big if - will revenues for X2 continue from the initial momGlenn D. Rudolph-4/23/1997
17619 Alan, I disagree with you that USRX would be 80 right now without the merger. Kirce Stojanovski-4/23/1997
17618 <i> If you think USRX is being held down by COMS, why don't you just drmorgan-4/23/1997
17617 PT Discount Brokerage trader Dale Boolton said U.S. Robotics was trading at 48 Chris Vu-4/23/1997
17616 If you think USRX is being held down by COMS, why don't you just sell your Bald Man from Mars-4/23/1997
17615 Cirris Logic posts wider loss. About x2 it says: "Communications: CommunicMoonray-4/23/1997
17614 Another cloud is the expectations by the company in it's forward info that Thomas Dremel-4/23/1997
17613 U.S. Robotics' Announces two Programs to Help Laptop Users Experience x2(TMGlenn D. Rudolph-4/23/1997
17612 (My first post) Nice report - anyone know if the estimates included any of the jfs-4/23/1997
17611 I said it before and was derided, but I think the important thing to do it to rAlan Peterman-4/23/1997
17610 Yes, it was 'funny?' to entertain the idea of not merging and paying thsteve harris-4/23/1997
17609 Steve: you might be right on; the # that sticks in my head is $160 mill. I haSawtooth-4/23/1997
17608 Financials news release URL: biz.yahoo.comSteven Meadows-4/23/1997
17607 Pat, i was on the other thread, they always ask that. I just gave em my name andrmorgan-4/23/1997
17606 Yes, without digging, a lot of time was spent on it here. I was thinking $150 msteve harris-4/23/1997
17605 jmac: I don't have the figure handy, it has been well reported but it was Sawtooth-4/23/1997
17604 CONFERENCE CALL #: 800 696-1563 CODE: 164010 04/23/97 (Wednesday) US ROBOTICS Steven Meadows-4/23/1997
17603 I own INTC, USRX and COMS @ 35 (prior to the announcement). Can you tell me whjmac-4/23/1997
17602 jmac: Yes, USRX can pay a significant penalty to back out of the merger if theSawtooth-4/23/1997
17601 I got the impression it wasn't up for a vote.jmac-4/23/1997
17600 jmac You can vote no with your proxy. Whenever the vote is. But like David saiJohn Stopforth-4/23/1997
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
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News