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: Don Green who wrote (43402)	6/4/2000 11:13:00 PM
From: Don Green	Respond to of 93625

The next major resistance for Rambus is 248, you might see major short covering once that point is breached. askresearch.com Don

To: Don Green who wrote (43402)	6/4/2000 11:16:00 PM
From: richard surckla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

>> If that is the best you can do... don't bother.<< I thought that was more than enough! <G>

To: Don Green who wrote (43402)	6/5/2000 12:34:00 AM
From: Pat Hughes	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93625

Oh Please, Its not the best I can do, But The ridiculousness of even posting such a trading system should be duly noted by anyone reading Bilow's posts and buying into his crap. It certainly convinced me that he was a complete amateur. I will re-post a link to the infamous system when I can find it!

To: Don Green who wrote (43402)	6/5/2000 8:02:00 PM
From: Dave B	Respond to of 93625

Don, That just shows how desperate some are for ammunition against Bilow's arguments. If that is the best you can do... don't bother. Most of Carl's posts are about unarguable topics (i.e. vaporware, such as the recent post about future DDR chipsets), or just plain odd, like the one comparing the ratio of RDRAM/DDR systems. What he didn't point out in the "ratio" post was that the delta between his old and new measurements for RDRAM systems was greater than the delta for DDR systems (the # of new "systems" with RDRAM was greater than the # of new "systems" with DDR). So much for his "no new design wins" statements. Nor did he point out (until later, I believe) that the increase in DDR systems were graphics cards. Comparing the "ratio" of systems just brings to mind the old line about "lies, damn lies, and statistics". Carl's posts are all the ammunition needed against Carl. However, it's good to make sure occasionally that people are aware that Carl has made a number of bizarre statements on top of the just-plain-misleading statements. My favorite is the one that RDRAM won't work in a socketed configuation. Definitely a lot of memory design expertise went into that one. Dave