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.

Technology Stocks : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave B who wrote (41539)	5/7/2000 9:38:00 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

<Any thoughts on providing proof of credibility yet?> There are some. For example, if a person provides facts that certain source (Dataquest in this particular case) has a wet credibility about RMAbus market share, what kind of "credibility" you want? Facts are facts, published and well documented, right? Anyone can point your face into this, and does not need any other proof of any credibility. Is it hard for you to comprehend? Ouch, I forgot that you have extensive Marketing experience, right! Keep the mark of your profession high, way to go!

To: Dave B who wrote (41539)	5/7/2000 11:10:00 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Re: thoughts on providing proof of credibility yet?... If you could read, you could read his posts. They are their own credibility. If you'd had even the most basic of physics and chemistry classes you'd be able to follow Carl's discussion. There is no "credibility" issue. This is science, engineering and reason - not who's who. When Kennan wrote "The Sources of Soviet Conduct", he signed it "X" and let his arguments prove his point, not his name. Just read Carl's posts carefully, then concur or disagree, but don't get all hung up on who he is. Dan