to all,
you would be amazed at the mail that i get. why do folks think their published writings should not be subjected to scrutiny and criticism? just about everything i write is scrutinized, criticized, and questioned.
i want to keep pm's personal. however since yahoo kicked unclewest off, without explanation, despite repeated e-mail requests, and since this pm has muzzling characteristics as well, i am posting it. after all, i am just one man.
i received the following via pm last night. please recall that we discussed the infrastructure paper on the thread. carl suggests in this letter that i am spinning to justify my investment opinion. does anyone really believe that i would do that :o). no one here does that do they? i have clearly and repeatedly stated my long position many times. i wonder what carl's investment position is and why he doesn't state it. could it be that he is spinning to justify his position...nah! of course not.
the last sentence really intrigues me...if the article was objective, thorough, and unbiased what points need clarifying and why? could it be because of scrutiny and criticism.
regarding platform 99, i have detailed notes from a person who attended the conference. i have not posted them because i do not personally know the person who e-mailed them and i have not been able to verify them. i have sent these notes to a few thread members who are personal acquaintances and friends. i will send them to anyone who is a regular contributing thread member if you pm me. i would like to openly thank "J" for sending them to me.
in conclusion, i repeat a few statements that i have made many times. i am not a techie. i am not a computer person. to be quite honest i do not know how any dram works. i am an investor. i research my investments thoroughly. i keep notes on my research. debating the relative merits of rambus' investment potential keeps me sharp and focused on my goal of investing successfully. i never debate the technical merits of rambus as i have zero qualifications for that. i often do however point out press stories or internet sites that counter some unsubstantiated technical claims made by others here and on yahoo. my goal is always to provide a substantiating link to anything i have to say about the technical merits of rambus. and even then, i only post tech stuff in response to other posts making claims that i consider debatable based on my reading. i much prefer leaving the tech stuff to thread members like tenchusatsu, scrumbia and the other highly qualified techies. i am afraid of hoof in mouth disease.
i do believe that most of us are on a serious quest for the truth about rambus...whatever it may be. i also believe that some are only interested in using psychological warfare to further their own short term position...whatever it may be.
may the truth prevail! and may we all find it soon!
De Oppresso Liber
unclewest
ps. carl, i do not know everything about rambus. if i did, i would not be here. have a great day.
here is the mail:
To: unclewest
From: Carl Johnson Monday, Jul 26 1999 11:53PM ET
Unclewest,
At first I was very interested in your feedback on INFRASTRUCTURE's RMBS report but after reading some of your comments on the RMBS board I realized that it really does not matter what we say - you will spin the story to fit your investment position. What really interests me the most is how you got the report in the first place? Are you a subscriber? I would think that you would immediately unsubscribe from our service (if you are a subscriber) since you seem so dissatisfied with the quality of that particular article. From my vantage point there really is no reason for you to read any of our followup comments since you appear to know everything there is about RMBS.
I should let you know that the feedback we received from Rambus and the people attending Semicon West indicated that the information in the article was right on the money. A couple of points will be clarified in our upcoming monthly issue but it is still not going to change our opinion.
Sincerely,
Carl
infras.com
|
