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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mani1 who wrote (62146)	11/5/2001 2:36:06 AM
From: bacchus_ii	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Why do you insinuate that peoples would change there vote if it was published. Result being public don't mean "how individual have been voting". Only in Florida that vote has not been public (after recounting) Gottfried

To: Mani1 who wrote (62146)	11/5/2001 9:41:17 AM
From: dale_laroy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

>I mentioned in the original post that the result would be "PUBLIC". I should have clarify what I meant by that.< Yes, I thought that by making the results public you simply meant that you would make the totals public. Might I suggest a compromise. You could PM the actual votes only to those who participate. This would provide the opportunity for any questioning your integrity by enabling the exchange of results lists through PM between members, while not unduly compromising privacy. BTW, since a shorter suspension is not an option, I am sustaining from voting, so I would not receive one of these PM notifications. BTW, I personally would not have any objections to my vote being published on the forum, I abstain because I object to the lifetime ban, and would have to vote no, which I do not want to do. I would prefer that Paul be banned until some milestone, such as Hammer or perhaps Barton being officially announced is reached. Actually, some other milestone, such as Intel actually shipping either a mobile P4 or Banias would be better, since AMD's potential failure to ship the target processor would result in a permanent ban, which would be unfair to Paul with his negativity with regards to AMD, which would in this case be justified. Might I at least suggest that, in the event of a lifetime ban, the technique of routinely posting links to Paul's increasing rare on this thread significant contributions on the Intel thread be used by some reasonably responsible poster, such as Tench.