Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric L who wrote (243)	9/20/1999 8:26:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12253

Eric L: As usual I thank you. The article is one year old. As the old saying goes, much water has passed under the bridge since then. Both qdog and you do not take kindly to my "flat out wrong" comment, but sadly the article bears no resemblance to the situtation now. Is that flat out wrong? Yup. To me that is. But this is the richness of the English language again. As I suggested to qdog, while I see that nothing is concluded yet in the standards wars of that long ago period, one hell of a lot has happened which makes the story irrevelant IMO. Acient history, sure. Since the "holy wars" much has happened. And the joke is that the story is packed with Marc Cabi , Nokia spokesman and all sorts of nonsense spewed from them. Yuk. We are long since past such stuff. In the real world now, the idea that the Q was an upstart with no hope of success, is a bit dated. Yet that is the thrust of the story. Enough. Perhaps the regurgitation of the holy wars is just too sad for me to see trotted out as a basis for current understanding. Times have changed. Chaz