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: tinkershaw who wrote (75098)	6/28/2001 3:51:14 PM
From: Bretsky	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

"There seems to be little of objective fact posted on this thread anymore." I could not agree with this assessment more. Two days ago, I bookmarked the RMBS thread because I was considering an initial investment and wanted to get a diversification of logical views in here. I figured on being standing back in the shadows a while before posting. To my disappointment, there seems to be more personal attacks, FUD, and general BS in here that any other thread I follow. Tinker could not be more right on that point.

To: tinkershaw who wrote (75098)	6/28/2001 6:34:51 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

tinkershaw, a company convicted of fraud did commit a crime. fraud is a crime. they were punished for that crime to the tune of $3.5 million dollars. it was reduced b/c rmbs choose a good place to go to court (and no other reason). i am biased, ts. i'm also biased against oj simpson. for the very same reason, too. i reviewed the evidence and came to the logical conclusion. not everybody finds that process as easy as i, i guess. >>Your bias really does show. Such as using comments from Craig Barrett regarding "dependent upon third parties," etc. That comment is taken out of context<< first, please expound on the context. second, if you can do the first in a cogent way then write to fortune and explain the err of their way. >>as well as is also evidenced by the fact that Intel's future road map has not changed in regard to RDRAM despite this "big mistake." ts, wishful thinking. intel's original roadmap included rambus exclusively. it no longer does. you call that the status quo? your bias shows through and i don't see what facts would lead you to your conclusion thaat intel's roadmap hasn't changed in a way that drastically impacts rmbs. >>There seems to be little of objective fact posted on this thread anymore.<< these threads are mostly opinions. my opinions are based on facts. you might not like those facts and you might try to deny the impacts of those facts, but they are what they are. >>But of course we should take the comments of Infineon's lead litigator as gospel truth.<< did i EVER say that? i don't recall anybody ever saying that and, if they did, i don't agree. what facts did you use to reach the conclusion that i implied this in any way, shape or form? and you talk about a lack of objectivity? at best, this is the pot calling the kettle black. >>Give me a break. If you personally hate the company fine. But if you want to discuss it a little objectivity and a lot less advocacy would go a long way.<< ts, i don't think you fully understand the depth of their fraud. perhaps your finances are biasing your view. stealing is a very serious issue. stealing billions is even more serious. this objective. this is a fact. let's discuss it. perhaps you would explain to me why i should feel positive about folks who conspire to and then steal information so they can attempt to extort an entire industry out of billions (this is what the objective facts show). i eagerly await your attempt... ;-) folks should rant about such immoral behavior lest other people try and do the same thing.