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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (33911)	10/27/2000 6:31:31 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Pump and dump, is not it a gorilla game rule? No. Hardly something that would reconcile with long term buy and hold, would it? Perhaps you have gotten perversely confused with MoMo? If so, I suggest you read TFM, as recommended by the thread header, since it contains a reasonably clear why the Gorilla Game is not like several other strategies, despite them sometimes overlapping on some of the same stocks. The reasons are different, the timing is different, and in many cases the stocks are different. My days of EE are far behind me, so I can't argue one way or another on your specific assertions, but I do have some practice at sorting through conflicting assertions and developing a sense of what is most probable or where the core of the conflict comes from. For example, when you say, among other things, <In regard to RDRAM performance benefits, and I'm sick of repeating this...the 820 is not a great vehicle for RDRAM> Interesting... you are asserting that "..Rambus has a value chain of the largest best abled players", which apparently include Intel as a main partner and, incidentally, designer of the 820 chipset. So, in effect you are saying that the "best abled player" has produced wrong chip. One of my reactions is to think that Rambus is quite possibly a technology which only has only a small advantage at lower speeds, but has the ability to keep up with higher speeds, where other memory becomes an increasing bottleneck because it can't keep up ... I can't assert this position with details, since it isn't my area of expertise, but it is an explanation which would indicate why there was not much difference now, but that we were on the leading edge of a period where the difference would become far more material. Moreover, it may also be that it is a technology which can be effectively or not and that this early in the implementation cycle, not all manufacturers quite have all of that figured out. I remember, for example, when EDO RAM was first introduced, it was clear that the technology was an increment faster than its predecessor, but there was a period in which machines were often misconfigured, e.g., missing pipeline burst cache, and were only getting less than 5% of the possible 20% performance benefit as a result, in many cases because accurate and correct and reliable information was hard to come by. Aside from which, it is quite possible to disagree with the ideas without making cracks about the competance of the person holding those ideas. That is what we do here on this thread ... except when talking about some idiot analyst, of course. But, if the idiot analyst would come join us here, we would be polite to him or her as well!