>> Since I do not recall any objections from you with regard to the recent post, Message 15811481 , I am forced to guess that the following excerpt is a good example to follow...
If you were inclined to be the least charitable you might have considered that I hadn't read it yet.
>> I apologize for disturbing your calm thread, and cordially agree that individuals may state their opinions as long as they indentify them as such.
Now that's charitable, except for the qualifier. The goal of the debate is to separate fact from opinion at its conclusion, and unless you're trying to establish yourself up as the sole arbiter of fact, resorting to discourtesy at any point in the process is premature.
>> I can't believe that a reasonable and honest individual can stretch the truth to such extent, especially if he was pointed out to several logical and factual flaws in his reasoning before, on the same SI thread.
Then you suffer from a very limited imagination, Ali. Tinker Shaw isn't the only investor, analyst, or corporation who has been convinced that Rambus has vital technology. After years of review by their technologists and legal staffs, a number of world class memory manufacturers including Samsung, NEC, Toshiba, Hitachi and Oki Electric bought into the program and agreed to pay stiff royalties to use Rambus's patents. If all of that high powered talent came to the same conclusion as Tinker, surely you can conceive that his comments might reflect sincere beliefs rather than some nefarious pump and dump scheme. If not, speaking for myself, I don't think your posts will be useful or welcome.
uf |
