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: Monica Detwiler who wrote (66371)	12/27/2001 1:44:04 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Monica: You accept the lies and fabrications of Dan3 and pgerassi and you complain to me because I call them for what they are? No, not at all. The problem is just that you don't call them for what they are. You generalize and project all their actions onto "AMD investors". This I take extreme offense at. In all groups of people (at least if they are more than just a few individuals), you can always find at least some who act in a way that is distasteful, annoying, criminal etc. If the particular group happens to be a (so-called) "race", the term for those who generalize and project the actions of the individuals onto the group is racist. You had better spend your time correcting the wild lies and claims of your fellow AMD shareholders - or former shareholders. I'm assuming that you would agree that I can spend my time any way I please, right? That said, would you like a dozen (or two, for that matter) links to posts where I have objected to claims made by niceguy, Dan3 etc. on this thread? No, I don't question every single claim that comes along. I'm sorry, I just don't have that kind of time - especially during Christmas. I also tend to respond to posts that no one else has already responded to, so if you or Paul or Elmer or Tench or that Win guy or someone else has already responded, the odds that I will also chirp in are significantly reduced. I do try to respond only when I feel that I would make a positive contribution (for myself or "the thread"). -fyo

To: Monica Detwiler who wrote (66371)	12/27/2001 1:47:09 PM
From: Dan3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: Fyodor: You accept the lies and fabrications of Dan3 Are you nuts? Look at some of his posts to me. By the way, let's look at some of my "lies" that you thought were so wrong. I claimed: Rambus would be a disaster for Intel, and they'd have to go to DDR. Copper at Dresden would be a success for AMD. This past year would be bad for both companies because there would be a brutal price war. That Intel would have trouble ramping P4 until .13 because it was too big and yields would be insufficient. That using names indicative of performance for chips instead of the nominal clock speed would be hugely beneficial to AMD (just about everyone jeered at me on that one, even a lot of AMD longs - now look at what AMD's 1.5GHZ chips sell for vs. Intel's 1.5GHZ chips). That SOI was crucial going forward, and that Intel would have to follow AMD. (just as they did with copper and DDR). Am I perfect? I missed how willing OEMs would be to bow to Intel's demands that they exclude AMD parts in their corporate lines. I missed that corporate buyers would be so gullible that they'd continue paying very high prices for PIII long after its performance was eclipsed by Athlon and all but matched by Celeron and Duron. I missed that AMD wouldn't be satisfied with the first design for the Hammers, which apparently was a very high IPC design and would have been difficult to market. It may or may not have even worked. So what was "hammer" was never produced and a moderately different design of the same name will appear about a year later than expected.

To: Monica Detwiler who wrote (66371)	12/27/2001 2:20:00 PM
From: heatsinker2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Monica- You accept the lies and fabrications of Dan3 Well, I can tell you one real nice thing about Dan. Dan doesn't call people liars. It really is nice to have a civil chat board. Dan3, niceguy, Milo and a few others may get into self-delusion at times, but I have seen no indication that anyone is intentionally being dishonest. There is a big difference. Your use of the term liar is uncalled for. I would suggest that you apologize and stop using the term.