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: TGPTNDR who wrote (76453)	4/4/2002 12:02:10 AM
From: wanna_bmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

TGPTNDR, Re: " tell us what the good point you thought Albert was 'on the verge' of making was, anyway." Given your previous admission and sardonic attitude, I shouldn't bother talking to you at all. But since your question is valid, I'll answer it anyway. FWIW, albert had brought up a link about Intel's loss in U.S. operations. He was giving Paul Engel a hard time about it, so I asked if he had a point (my reasoning was, loss in U.S. operations or not, Intel still made a tidy profit overall). albert responded something about Intel's business strategy, so I figured he might have something insightful to say about the shift in revenue to international buyers, while sacrificing margins domestically. Unfortunately, albert was more concerned about whether I was sticking up for Paul Engel, that he didn't even continue his discussion on Intel's business practices. I pressed him for more information (politely, I thought), but he responded with items that I thought were outside of the original discussion. Things like the pricewar and Intel's manufacturing goals had less to do with the topic of a loss in Intel U.S operations than where I was coming from. So I asked him to continue. Yet again, like pulling teeth, albert resorts to a defensive stance, and acts like I'm attacking him. So obviously I try and assure him that it wasn't the case. albert does continue, but he still brings up the pricewar, and this time he has the audacity to claim that Intel's CEO is intentionally trying to hurt INTC and AMD shareholders in a pricewar, while knowing that there wouldn't be any returns. You can check here for his exact quote. siliconinvestor.com I am happy to listen to criticisms about Intel's business practices, and if albert had a good point, I'd seriously want a good discussion out of it. However, I can't tolerate senseless AMDroid Intel bashing, and albert tries to sneak that kind of thing in all the time. (And yes, quite a few people on the Intel thread will senselessly bash AMD, too.) But if albert wants to play around and annoy myself and others with wild claims like what he said about Berrett, then I can't take him seriously enough to have a meaningful conversation. That's why I challenged his claims, and that's why I continued to harass him. And just so that you know, he never could back up that claim about Barrett. wbmw