SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (170070)8/26/2002 2:08:59 AM
From: wanna_bmw  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
Joe, Re: "So it took AMD 4 months to find Van Smith? Interesting theory, should I say diversion. You are doing a very good job of changing the subject"

I think I did a fine job in my last post in stressing the point that there are indeed two separate issues here. I informed you that I would be changing the subject, because we had already went into some depth on the former in PM. I think that it is worth regarding both issues, since they are related.

But, whatever. Go ahead and believe whatever you want, Joe, which pretty much comes down to finding a way to justify to yourself that Intel has committed "fraud", while AMD is nothing more than the "victim". What a surprising conclusion, coming from you.

wbmw



To: Joe NYC who wrote (170070)8/26/2002 1:18:20 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 186894
 
Joe, <So it took AMD 4 months to find Van Smith?>

My take is that AMD is getting more desperate, so the restraint they had before (when they approached Tom Pabst over the situation in April) vanished.

Anyway, there seems to be disagreement in the enthusiast community over the whole BAPCo situation. Like I said before, dishonesty has a nasty way of showing up at the worst possible time. If there is any to be found, we'll see it in due time. Until then, I'll consider this to be nothing more than additional fuel for the partisan flame wars.

Tenchusatsu