albert, Re: "or. yeh the one that shows amd never having 20% market share."
I never claimed that. You were the one that claimed the following:
Message 17204642
"It seems like barrett was determined on hurting intel and amd shareholders without even remote possibility of success."
You also claimed:
"one more thing or rather more on price-war, on a number of occasions I spoke against intel pricing strategy... it seemed that there was no real benefit from decreasing prices. AMD always lowered them after intel so the balance would not be upset. Now it would make sense to me if there would be extra no constraints on intel but the expected gm created a constraint. So intel was not really capable of going low enough to hurt amd."
You can't even remember what we are talking about, even though I reminded you several times.
Message 17205759
Message 17205705
This is the third time I am reminding you, since you still haven't addressed your original claim. You have problems with the pricewar because you define success as intel "going low enough to hurt amd". I wanted to ask you if your assumptions for Intel's success may be different than Intel's.
siliconinvestor.com
Instead, you continue to change the conversation and claim that it's about market share, or about insulting your honesty, and in this case, since you cannot think of any better argument, you say:
"man this is pathetic, and in case you forgot what we have been talking about and how pathetic it is just review the posts."
Good job, albert. You cannot think of a single good argument, so you either change the subject, or you simply throw up your hands in disgust. The only pathetic thing is that you can't admit that you are wrong. It's even funny, too, because you took pride in being able to admit that kind of thing.
siliconinvestor.com
"would you actually say "yes, you are right and I stand corrected" as I do when I make a mistake?"
You haven't said that, yet, albert, and I believe it is long overdue.
I expected better from you.
wbmw |
