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
COMS/USRX
An SI Board Since February 1997
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
1384 5 0 COMS
Emcee:  Jeffery E. Forrest Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
734 WW, us USRX stockholders have learned the hard way to pretty much ignore after-Dwight E. Karlsen-3/8/1997
733 Very interesting article, Jeffery. >Only about 50 percent of businesses withDwight E. Karlsen-3/8/1997
732 Jeff: On this rebate thing" the normal rate of redemption ". I woReseller-3/8/1997
731 Very well said Tim. I could not agree with you more. I have been there too.John Sanz-3/8/1997
730 I trade at home through my computer for a living usually fourteen hours a day oTim Luke-3/8/1997
729 Networking Stks Active In Late New York Trading Dow Jones News Services NEW YWigglesworth-3/7/1997
728 Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 11:50:12 -0800 (PST) To: quotecom-users@quote.com Subjectemichael-3/7/1997
727 Networking cheap for little guys By Ben HesketJeffery E. Forrest-3/7/1997
726 Thanks, Wigglesworth. An impressive post. I think I'd better start spendiBoon-3/7/1997
725 David, at this point $60 in COMS before the end of the year looks very very gooDwight E. Karlsen-3/7/1997
724 Just slightly, according to Chris Paisley, the 3Com CFO. But hteir produc tlinDonald W-3/7/1997
723 Dwight and all: Some relevant comments from Motley Fools: The Year is 1994 TWigglesworth-3/7/1997
722 Dwight, You said "<i>...it seems to me the odds are stacked againstDavid Lawrence-3/7/1997
721 Greg, the main results of the WSJ study make sense to me: >The just-finisheDwight E. Karlsen-3/7/1997
720 Dwight, I'm not sure we're on the same wavelength. I say the articGreg Jung-3/7/1997
719 I agree that this merger doesn't fit in any of the WSJ study catagories. ThDwight E. Karlsen-3/7/1997
718 Too much fundamentals at work for an options-controlled price.Greg Jung-3/7/1997
717 Which flag do I salute for that article? However one of the violins was offGreg Jung-3/7/1997
716 Re: WSJ article: The last paragraph damns the entire study by displaying the sGreg Jung-3/7/1997
715 Could this have anything to do with the weakness of COMS/USRX today? biz.yahoodavid decamp-3/7/1997
714 Ramsey, keep in mind that the open interest also includes those SELLING calls. Michael Anthony-3/7/1997
713 To all: why isn't USRX trading at 1.75xCOMS?go_bucks-3/7/1997
712 Here's what I was looking for; techstocks.com Now I know why I remebered Jeffery E. Forrest-3/7/1997
711 Scrapps, thanks. I completley forgot about the "NEW and IMPROVED" seaJeffery E. Forrest-3/7/1997
710 Scrapps, big open interest positions for COMS Mar 35 and USRX Mar 60. Both wilRamsey Su-3/7/1997
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
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News