Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting Message Board

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting

QCOM 175.25

+0.6%

Dec 19 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Clarksterh who wrote (53066)	7/2/2006 5:15:01 PM
From: GPS Info	Read Replies (2) of 197009

Jim - you are in absolutely no position to talk about "volume of posts" and FUD. Clark, I respectfully disagree: Jim does not present “fear, uncertainty and doubt” to this board regarding Nokia, as far as I have seen over the years. Jim may follow Maurice Winn’s comments about Nokia’s tactics from time to time, but Jim tries hard to reign in his cheerleading when ask. How does Eric L. respond to challenges to his points compared to Jim? Have we just degenerated into YMB. I disagree vehemently with this comment as well. Is one man’s FUD another’s cheerleading? I don’t believe so, but I’m willing to be educated – if you have the time. Some time ago, I suspected that Eric L. was paid to post on these boards. There is no sin in presenting a case for GSM over CDMA, and there is no sin in pointing out Qualcomm’s shortcomings. However, I have found Eric’s attempts at impartiality to be deeply flawed. I rarely agree with his reasoning, but then again, I have an engineer’s bias against sales people going back many years. I must quickly state that I do agree with your appraisal of his understanding of standards - without reservation. The upshot here is that I have convinced myself some time ago that Eric was/is paid to post here. I’ll continue to read his posts with that understanding. As a disclosure and a mea culpa, I created a post about GSM’s delayed development in GPS and inserted a sentence denigrating GSM carriers. I openly admit that this was to goad Eric L. into a defensive response. This worked as plan: His response and defense of the GSM carriers was fulsome and had the usual denigrations for Qualcomm. IMO, his defense of GSM involves a trashing of CDMA, and not a review of comparative advantages of the technologies. This is where FUD comes from, IMO. Respectfully, GPS Info

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next