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: Joe NYC who wrote (161853)	3/12/2002 8:05:13 AM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 186894

Great work Joe. I'm sure the people who wants to know the truth appreciate the effort. I do. The FUD from the Intel employees is getting more desperate it seems. Steve

To: Joe NYC who wrote (161853)	3/12/2002 8:58:51 AM
From: Dan3	Respond to of 186894

Re: [cheerleaders]posting (and re-posting several times) wrong information about P4 not being a paper launched - when by most indications P4 launch is a paper launch Thanks very much for the hard work on that post. The amazing thing is that paper launching a new mobile part a month or so before it really is available, isn't such a big deal - AMD has done it too. Which makes one wonder why some of these guys are so hysterical about P4-M being a little late.

To: Joe NYC who wrote (161853)	3/12/2002 11:26:52 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Witchhunt Joe, Re: "Your links don't stand up" The links worked fine when I used them the other day. In fact, they had none of the messages that you seem able to find now. What could it mean? Reality check among the OEMs? At any rate, your attempts to further discredit me come across in bad taste, especially after your attempts to do the same thing on the other thread. Dan3 is still a moron and a liar, and he has been caught in lies dozens of times. Given your new information, I'll grant him credit that he's probably right about a P4M paper launch, but his links certainly didn't stand up to mine at the time. Good for you for standing up for your fellow AMDroids, though, but the tact and angle at which you bring up your points still sucks. wbmw

To: Joe NYC who wrote (161853)	3/12/2002 11:59:11 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Joe, <In a situation like this, you (and others) call Dan a liar and moron> In every link you posted, Dan deserved to be called a liar and a moron: 1) He claimed that there were no large cache Xeons, except for 700 MHz variety: Message 17171166 2) He incorrectly attributed differences in Business Winstone performance to the graphics cards. Not to mention that he called ME a moron: Message 17153981 3) Dan confuses the ASP of small-cache Xeons with large-cache varieties and uses it to support his usual anti-Intel FUD: Message 17169256 4) Dan continues spreading the lie that any old AGP card plugged into a P4 motherboard will instantly fry the system: Message 17056147 Your defense of Dan is hypocritical. Only the McCarthyists on the "Moderated" thread would think otherwise. Tenchusatsu