lest the resident flaming slimer mislead anybody, here is the original post. let's see if it makes sense.
>>larry, historically, mu makes $0.15 per year.<<
from 1984 to 1993 mu made $1.41 per fred hickey of the high tech strategist. i am guilty of adding a year in one post - but it was corrected shortly thereafter. this was the basis for the above statement. i was never asked what the basis was. i was flamed and labeled all sorts of ridiculous names. when the slime is removed, though, this statement was, is and always will be real. it is most definitively not the ramblins of a misleader nor a manipulator as some would say. in fact, they know this to be true. there is no debate.
my data was put into question. no need to ask what data i was using. sliming skeets was the intended outcome, not any real discussion of opinions.
>>that is their normal business.<<
this is obviously my opinion. it may not be popular, but then neither was my prediction that mu would be break even or losing money in 1998 when everyone else had their undies in a wad believing they would make $3.00+.
>>1995 was an anomoly.<<
again, any reasonable person would infer this to be my opinion. i guess i'm out of my mind for not including 1994. i guess i will start having write in 3rd grade style and not assume people have a decent ability to infer the obvious.
>>won't happen again anytime soon<<
again, the obvious inference is that this my opinion. hello?
>>even though people are betting it will.<<
that is what valuing a company at $30 a share (over $6 billion) when they are losing $100 mil from operations each and every q, their capital expenditures are in the billion plus range, their competitors are at 65% capacity, etc. means, right? again, hello?
>>did valueline predict the current mu price 3 years ago? why would you expect them to be so good now when they were so wrong then?<<
the question still stands. the whole post still stands.
where is the manipulation that i've been slimily accused of? where? what is the basis of the accusation? where is the misleading? where is their room for righteous indignation - other than the phony kind? this is pathetic. but a sliming flame has been exposed. so some good came from this. what was supposed to be rubbed in my nose? what? there is nothing. so why the attack. why the name calling? my bet is some pathetic ulterior motive is at work. all i can do is expose it, which i've done. lest anybody be confused, the slime attempt says more about the slimer than the slimee - and it ain't good.
where is the admission that i most EMPHATICALLY DID NOT pull the $0.15 out of my b*tt as was first implied? there will never be on b/c it takes a man to fess up when his allegations are WRONG. rather, the mo is to attack my choice of dates and leave the original FALSE ACCUSATION dangling. P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C.
i'd be sorry for this ongoing issue but i can't take responsibility for others' flaming and sliming. every time i'm slimed or flamed (and in this case, both), though, i WILL aggressively point out the absurdity of the issue. if i'm wrong i'll admit it and move on. if i'm slimed for no reason, then you better believe i will make the issue clear and point the responsibility right back at the slimer/flamer.
this was NEVER about being a year off on my decade, as the slimer would have you believe AFTER THE FACT. this is about him saying i was completely off base and THERE WAS NO REASONABLE WAY ANYBODY COULD DERIVE MU'S NORMAL EPS TO BE $0.15. he didn't know the eps b/c he had to look. he just spouted and stuck his foot in his mouth. well, taking the first decade of mu's eps is reasonable and not worthy of a slime nor a flame. especially when 20-30 fold increase in eps that followed has been eliminated and mu is losing money hand over fist. we are much closer to what i called "normal eps" than any decade of eps that the slimer could call "normal." perhaps, mature disagreement. but not the slime, flame nor phony "moral" outrage.
he was wrong and can't admit it. the facts i used were supportable and reasonable. he was wrong to question the data. it was accurate. so he changes the issue. NOT! |
