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: jim kelley who wrote (46799)	7/8/2000 11:33:27 PM
From: milo_morai	Respond to of 93625

Jim Public perception is changing. So that is something new. Milo

To: jim kelley who wrote (46799)	7/10/2000 7:47:25 AM
From: KeepItSimple	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

You just won the award for the most ridiculous denial of the truth i've seen this year on SI. First you claim the benchmarks are false, then when you see that they are from Intel's website you claim they are being misinterpreted, then when you actually READ the benchmarks you say "Oh did I say we were talking about existing rdram? I meant to say in-the-future rdram." Either you are a chump who has margined his life savings to the hilt on Rambus stock, or you are an employee of Rambus who is being paid overtime to pimp for their ridiculous blackmail-the-industry business plan. Nobody else could possibly be so utterly lacking in basic critical thinking. >RDRAM performance continues to improve at 1 GHZ. These comparisons were >for the slower speed models. The benchmarks also do not address the >strength of RDRAM.

To: jim kelley who wrote (46799)	7/10/2000 7:52:42 AM
From: KeepItSimple	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

>All this has been discussed before. There is nothing new here. Next you're going to say "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is." Yes, it has been discussed before. And guess what! You posted nearly a dozen messages in which you refused to admit that RDRAM underperformed SDRAM. The only thing new is that now you're confronted by one of those awful things called FACTS, and you can't just say "Tom's Hardware is biased" and wiggle your way out of it. Also, I noticed that you SPECIFICALLY avoided admitting that rambus is turning in lower scores. You crafted the message I am replying to right now with a level of deception and smarm that pegs you as a lawyer or a rambus employee who is REQUIRED to never, under any circumstances, admit that rdram is slower. And oh yeah, we know that's a company policy. Because if one rambus engineer or exec was ever caught admitting in public that their product actually is SLOWER, then the company would never live it down. Ever. Anyway, hope you were smart enough to sell your shares on friday. It's pretty clear rambus is heading below 100 early this morning.