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: Bilow who wrote (73297)	5/20/2001 5:13:27 AM
From: NightOwl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

It's truly a sad state of affairs CB. When I first began watching This thread, and indeed right up until the time of The FALL, I marveled at the high altitude "Morality" raids that Dave B flew against you, Ali and, most notably, Scumbria. It was fairly clear before the INAPgate affair, that he has some sort of moral/ethical... "consistency" issues. Not that he is the only one. But he was certainly among the vocal and insistent cadre of those who "Longed" for the imposition of certain morals/ethics on their fellow posters. Even with the advent of the infamous "Ignore" option there are many contributors here who feel compelled to "demonstrate" a stance on the moral high ground. But as I have suggested before. Taking the "moral" view is a punt when it costs you nothing. It means even less when you are sitting on beaucoup profits and dining out on lobster. Unfortunately this is a major weakness of Mom & Pops and EEs alike. Indeed,... were it not for the abject poverty rampant throughout the old Cache INN, even we feathered fauna would be prone to similar "inconsistencies" I can assure you.<vbg> 0\|0

To: Bilow who wrote (73297)	5/21/2001 8:41:08 PM
From: Dave B	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Carl This is my favorite Dave B post: #reply-15390582 , because in this single post he admits the following: LOL! You, again, have no clue. First, please post my "bullish" comments from the INAP thread. The original message you referenced had a quote from an anaylst that said that INAP could get 7% of a $40+B market. I added the comment "Wow". So it doesn't matter if I have an "inside" connection or not. Adding "Wow" to an analyst comment that INAP could grow to a $3B business is pretty tame, by anyone's pumping and dumping standards. The rest of your comments are just inanities. The funny thing about all this is that Dave B has such an absence of moral maturity You wouldn't know moral maturity if it bit you in the behind. I'm not the one who has had his posts stricken from the SI threads. I'm not the one who was suspended from SI for making up an article and attributing it to a real organization. If you're interested, you might want to check the mirror for the definition of moral (and general) immaturity. I guess that explains his failure to realize that what Rambus did with respect to SDRAM was FRAUDULENT. You've actually never asked me what I thought of the issue. I haven't seen the exact text from the note that the lawyers turned over, but if the reporting on the note is accurate, then, yes, it appears that RMBS tried to fraudulently add claims to their patents. Any other questions? We had a wonderful time in SF, but it's nice to be back.