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.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : Patriot Scientific - PTSC
PTSC 0.589+7.6%Jan 14 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Benedict Arnold who wrote (4116)12/31/1997 10:04:00 AM
From: Jon Tara  Read Replies (1) of 8581
 
"To your Lie #1, I had responded, "I never said nor implied anything of the kind. Reread my post." Do it. In post 4100 I said the people buying chips would know the difference and implied that the investors won't care. You lied about what I said."

That's essentially saying that it's OK to fib, as long as people know they are being fibbed-to.

There are some contexts in which this is considered to be acceptable in advertising, as long as the fib is so outrageous to be obvious to all. This technique is typically used to be humurous or attract attention. For example, "eat a MegaChocaWocka Bar, and you'll be on top of the world". Will you really be transported to the North Pole if you eat one of their chocolate bar? Not likely. Is this deceptive advertising? Naw. The Intel dancing assemblers is another example. Do Intel employees really dance around (upside-down, no less) in their clean suits while building their products? Probably not. :)

However, this is quite different than that.

As far as my "lie" about what you said, you know perfectly well what the phrase "In other words ..." means. It means that I am restating what you said in my own words, or that I am stating the logical consequences of what you said. It means that I am interpreting. If I'd meant to repeat literally what you said, I'd have prefaced it with "you said ...". I didn't.

It may be that you've never referred to the PSC1000 as a "Java processor", and if so, my apologies. At least you now admit that it is not one, and that is a useful fallout from this discussion. ;)

You have said, though, on many occasions, that the "PSC1000 executes Java bytecode", and said so in contexts that imply that it is somehow unique in that ability. We've gone back and forth on that, both agreeing that practically all processors "execute Java bytecode" in some manner.

However, the most obvious interpretation of "executes Java bytecode" is "executes Java bytecode natively", which we both agree that the PSC1000 does not. Since the phrase implies something that is untrue, why keep repeating it?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext