Pluvia,
RE: "Ahh... Wrong again champ... TERN was simply re-labeling someone else's products and representing those
products as their own, a fact we exposed first in our report. A fact that's important as re-labled products have a
pretty slim margin..."
You still haven't spoken to the issue. Let's see, "representing" those "modems" as their own? OEM'd, big whoop. Less margins? Swell and so what? You make my point for me. Thanks. All can plainly wonder, how on earth do you suppose TERN could have ANY margins on a product you claimed didn't exist in their line of products? Answer: Your report which indicated they didn't have such a product at all, must have been plainly false. The fact that you wrote here concerning the likely poor margins for TERN's DOCSIS products PRIOR to writing your report, is naught but clear evidence you were aware of TERN'S DOCSIS product(or should have been!) before you offered your false report indicating that no such product existed. Your report either lied or was representative of incompetence.
First off, what you say you "first exposed" was NOT new to this thread when you "first exposed" it, as you now falsely claim once again(but you'd have to have read the thread to know that). Ahem, Oh, but too, Tern had to, as I understand it(correct me if I'm wrong), design the DOCSIS approved product around the OEM'd chips it purchased, and acquired its very own DOCSIS certification for the final product. Even if I understood this wrongly, it wouldn't matter, TERN in fact had already accomplished offering a DOCSIS approved product for sale at the time you claimed their products were "solely" based on S-CDMA, not DOCSIS. Sorry, your tale couldn't be more false, then or now. Black is black. Not a matter of opinion, just fact.
Let me repeat...If a company sells a DOCSIS product, but you claim their products are "solely" something else(not as good), while predicting this lacking should well doom the company, you've told a big one(flasehood). Period. OEM'd or not. Period. Get it? The fact that your report still contains an obvious lie of central significance must be impossible for you to wish to own up to, but it does, it always will, and it is hence certainly illegal and fraudulent, particularly when combined with your clear intent to move a market in your favor, IMO.
I can't get over it. Terayon, one of the companies working with Cablelabs in helping to write DOCSIS standards, and a company already selling DOCSIS approved product, is said to not have any DOCSIS product at all, and you are apparently too wrapped up in some unholy recruitment drive to admit the simple truth. You claim instead that since the TERN DOCSIS approved product of the time was an OEM'd product to one extent or another, this somehow corrects your claim that they had no DOCSIS products at all, LOL. It's now just months later, and TERN has other DOCSIS approved products they've developed to boot. HUH...reading you I'da thunk that couldn't be!
I believe your methods, are, well, dispicible.
Frankly, if you think you are gonna convince any thinking persons who read here, that you didn't lie in your report, I respectfully must suggest you need some help with your thinking.
So I'll say it yet again...what you've done is akin to claiming Pespi products are solely based in lemmonlime flavorings, and insisting that a cola product will need to be developed if Pepsi is to survive(no way they could do it in time, no doubt). The big difference is that TERN's products aren't household knowledge, and too many folks may have accepted your false scenario at face value.
That this post seems to be as long and repetitive of the same point as may be humanly possible, is purely intentional. Apologies for all streams of consciousness, if irritated.
RE: "You seem to be missing the forest for the trees Danny boy. Our advice made a huge pile of money... Your advice
lost money"
First, of course, it was I who never advised anyone to buy or sell TERN, (though in fact, I reported my own decision NOT to buy repeatedly). You however, not only advised, but managed to tell a plain falsehood to bolster your "opinion." You get an "A" for effort, too bad it's criminal effort in this case, IMClearO.
Second, I'm confident 'tis you who missed the forest when describing yourself and your results. Concerning TERN, you renigged on your vow to provide further reports after I called your lie for what it was. You claimed your failure to provide further reports as promised was due to you having moved on to better things- as if that was an OK excuse for your previously unacknowledged abandonment of your vow to share more damning information with this thread. Never-the-less, taking you at your word, we thus know you missed a huge part of the move you now jump to tout having called. Truly ratty, IMO.
Your writing is sometimes falsely criminal in nature(documented on this thread, of course), often vile and pointlessly locker room juvenile(WELL documented by many), and just generally disgusting, IMO. Being kind at heart, the best I can say of you is you are no better than other ANALysts(but like so many writers, you love to pretend you are better than you are).
Freedom works,
Dan B |
