Re: "Go get 'em"
Unfortunately, this has really gotten out of hand. The MarketWatch reporter messed up some of the article (e.g., 0.21 processor) and then quoted me in an inappropriate context.
I specifically pointed out that these are unsubstantiated rumors (if that's not a redundancy) and that when I posed the various mutations of the rumors to the company, each had been denied or refuted in very plain talk. I believe the response. I mentioned that the rumors were very specific and that such specificity gave them a credibility at face value (not "valued on face"). The part about the credibility being shredded is correct as stated, but it was said with the implication that it would be unlikely that the company would deny something like this that, if true, would come inevitably to light.
Nothing I said to the reporter (or anyone else, for that matter) should be interpreted as an endorsement for the claims associated with these rumors. This stance would only change with conclusive proof that can be tracked to an identifiable source. So far, that hasn't come close to happening.
I understand that there are those on this thread that would have a hard time believing management if it postulated that water flowed downhill. Certainly there is a record of excess optimism for products or business trends. Other than the recent ASP debate on the conference call and the famous market share question, I have not been witness or party to any situation where factual discrepancy is an issue, so I am inclined to give the company the benefit of the doubt. If, however, I have been misled on this issue, then I will obviously have to take a different tack.
I have not been a shill for the stock (duh!), but I have no problem keeping the stock and the company apart in my mind. I really want this company to succeed and I really want to be able to advocate purchase of the stock at a price that makes sense. Dealing with this stuff over the past few days has been extremely non-rewarding for me (and I can only imagine how frustrating it's been for the company). However, I have no problem viewing this episode as noise, and prefer to concentrate on the more pertinent issues - excess production and sloppy demand. The rest is sideshow. - Tad LaFountain |
