Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) 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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

AMD 231.80

+1.7%

3:59 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: fastpathguru who wrote (258923)	3/13/2009 5:50:17 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) of 275872

You seem to think that the translator is commenting on raw witness testimony. The so-called "commentary" as you put it, i.e. references to actual testimony vs. actual testimony, is due to the fact that the document being translated is the court's judgement. FPG, you've already been corrected on this. This is not a court ruling. This case has not gone to court yet. There is no judgment. This is a finding by a administrative body, not a court. Please try to get this straight. Meanwhile we seem to be arguing two different things intertwined. The KFTC's findings and the translator's translation. Those two things need to be separated and it is my belief that one is wrong(the KFTC's) and the other is probably wrong(the translator's). The translator cautions us as well: It should be kept in mind that the translation could be inaccurate. I will however correct one of my statements. Here is what I said and what I should have said: you're pointing out what the commentator said, not what the document* actually said.* The commentator is the administrator and his comments were interpreted by the translator. The administrator erred in his understanding of the testimony by the witnesses and the translator may have mistranslated the administrator's statement. That's why it needs to go to court. The witnesses can be questioned by Intel under oath and the confusion can be cleared up. So since you're explicitly _not_ claiming that the document was "mistranslated", Do you think that the person who wrote the KFTC's judgement, i.e. the judge, misrepresented witness testimony or took it out of context? Yes I do and again, there was no judge. That's the whole point of Intel's case. And it may have been mistranslated as well by the AMD paid "advocate". He's not a professional translator. The judgment is the judge's summary of the cases presented by both sides, and the rationale behind his decision. Your so-called "commentary" is the view of the judge, who was not ignorant of the context of witness testimony. I hope by now you realize there was no Judge because there was no Court and there was no trial. Perhaps if you are told enough times it may sink in. It is the finding of a bureaucrat. What people hear is not always what someone said. That's why they are going to court so they can put those people under oath and question then to clear up ambiguity. Do you understand the difference between a judgement and witness testimony? Now, do you understand the difference between a Court of Law and the findings by bureaucratic body?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next