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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GVTucker who wrote (152106)	12/11/2001 5:39:13 PM
From: Elmer	Respond to of 186894

In reality, I doubt that Paul is in possession of any material non public information. I agree. I don't think for a minute Paul has or would use material inside information. But this bring us to another point. What constitutes "material". I know of a picture on the wall of a cube at an Intel site. This is not public information but hardly material. I think for information to be material it must have the potential of changing the perception of the value of the company's stock should it be made public. Otherwise, no harm no foul. Paul's statement about the XBox processor being profitable is not material at this point. EP

To: GVTucker who wrote (152106)	12/11/2001 6:05:35 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

GV, re: If he receives inside information from a source, he either needs to stop trading Intel stock, or tell his source to either clam up or convince Intel to start disclosing this information publicly. Since we don't know if PE traded any Intel stock (or if he has inside information), no harm no foul, right? Seems like a lot of bandwidth for nothing. When McMannis says Intel is losing $Billions on X-Box nobody bothers to respond. I guess that goes to credibility. John