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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (24944)	8/24/2000 5:40:06 PM
From: Michaelth1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

OT (because just about every reply to you is off topic as to what really matters with ATHM). You have a very short memory (which is convenient for theorists). You've said many times and continue to say that AOL and @Home don't compete. I disagree. Subsequently, in one of your posts, you implied (since you never state anything concretely) that AOL and @Home compete. You later backpedaled and challenged me to prove you wrong by showing that AOL and @Home do indeed compete. To prove you wrong, I used a definition of competition from a reputable dictionary and used that definition to prove that AOL and @Home compete. I never said that every form of competition would be encompassed by the definition that I cited. To satisfy a definition, you need to satisfy only one of the multiple meanings of a word. Grace then gave an example of another form of competition, one that does not include a third party, and therefore fell outside of the partial definition that I used. I acknowledged that, as with most words, there is more than one definition of competition and illustrated how her example fit into the second half of the definition of competition used by Merriam. I also stated that the relationship of AOL and @Home fit into the second definition of competition as well as the first. The two definitions of competition are not mutually exclusive. Do you understand this or are you really as simple as you let on? Let me give you an example just in case you are that simple. The definition of "fool" is "1. a person lacking in judgment or prudence, 2. a retainer formerly kept in great households to provide casual entertainment and commonly dressed in motley with cap, bells and bauble, 3. a harmlessly deranged person or one lacking in common powers, 4. a cold dessert of pureed fruit mixed with whipped cream or custard." We know that you're a fool according to definition 3, and probably a fool pursuant to definition 2 (as you make spare change at kids parties to upgrade your Green Gremlin to a Dodge Dart), and perhaps even definition 1. Most likely, however, even you are not a fool according to definition 4. But simply because your not a cold dessert doesn't mean that you’re not a fool. I've made no concessions regarding my stance on @Home and AOL. My contentions are quite simple (pay close attention): AOL and @Home compete, even though they do not offer identical services. It's my opinion that @Home does not have to market head to head against AOL in order to successfully draw AOL customers away. @Home has to draw AOL customers to @Home's service to succeed. @Home and AOL, however, can even co-exist. Perhaps you don’t understand how all these can be true, but that’s your shortcoming, not mine. As a typical doctorate (particularly one from an inferior school), you have no common sense and miss the big picture of how the masses think and act. That's why you will never understand how to successfully run a retail business such as ATHM. I must admit you have a great vocabulary (or thesaurus), but your just plain wrong about a lot. What’s worse, you refuse to learn. Instead of staying up nights reading the dictionary, may I suggest that you leave your 8' by 4' office and talk to some real people. True genius comes not from pontificating, but from being able to apply.