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.
Non-Tech : Amati investors
AMTX 1.730+2.4%Nov 28 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: SteveG who wrote (19949)6/18/1997 4:55:00 PM
From: pat mudge   of 31386
 
[Final clarification]

<<<You said there was an agreement. The report said Tac said there was not. That constitutes you being wrong. If Infrastructure was errant in it's report, your issue is with them.>>>

I said an agreement was at the attorneys. It was. We do not know what Tac said other than what Infrastructure reported. (I have written to Infrastructure regarding the wording of their article and received a long reply. We agreed to disagree, and the editor asked not to be quoted.) Incidentally, if you quote a newsletter as the basis for your argument, then it's not an issue to be taken up with them. The issue is with you.

<<<<I've been told the final papers were ready to sign --- after months of negotiations --- and USR said, "Oops, forgot to tell you, that's not included. . . " >

<<And we have heard QUITE differently from a variety of reports to this thread. >>>

That's what the thread is for. Why are you running the issue into the ground?

<<<The deal didn't happen. You were sure that it would. You "explained" your being off in saying that it was "close". I challenged your statement of it being close.>>>

Why is this an issue? I said it was close. You said it wasn't. Who are your sources? (I don't need names.) How close to the discussions were they? Were they personally involved? Were they one-removed from the talks? Two? Three?

<<<Your posts are not conservative. You rarely hide your bias/optimism in ANY post. You have admitted you are not objective regarding Amati.
Your disclaimers, when you post them, are usually a one-liner at the end, often after nod/wink speculation and/or exuberant interpretation. >>>

You've asked for disclaimers. I give disclaimers. You'll have to put up with my personality coming through. I'm not a machine. Who I am comes through and probably couldn't be hidden if I tried. The same is true for you. Remember, all writing is biography.

<<<And to MY former list add integrity, responsibilty and humility.>>>

If I didn't have integrity nor feel a sense of responsibility, I'd have left this thread a long time ago. Humility isn't so easy. The minute you grasp it, it's gone. I'll work on it.

Regards,

Pat

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext