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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rkral who wrote (32917)	2/27/2003 9:24:20 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196634

Rkral, You wrote ->>”OT ... Jim, you stated an opinion. I stated an opposing opinion, with an IMHO, and you accuse me of "rampant knit-picking". Where is the logic in that accusation? If you can't accept opposition to the points of your list, maybe you should keep the list private, or at least spare us step-by-step additions to the list. “<<<< Rkral- 1. Re:>>>“step-by-step additions to the list.” <<< I believe the original list included 13 items. My “step-by-step” additions therefore amounted to a grand total of one. You can simply spare “yourself” the apparent pain you are putting yourself thru by simply not reading my posts or putting me on ignore. 2. Re: “and you accuse me of "rampant knit-picking". Where is the logic in that accusation? “<< Just to refresh your memory- below are listed some of your many nitpicking posts (no value added for anyone other than for your self satisfaction and pointed non-constructive criticism of my posting style). In my prior post to you I suggested- “Can’t we work things out via PM?” Obviously you want a public forum for this silly matter. I recognize that I am generally enthusiastic in my comments regarding Qualcomm and I’m also an optimist by nature. Some may call it cheerleading, but for the most part I believe there is generally enough substance to back up what I write and I believe my posts have generally been viewed as a contribution by most. I believe all of your following comments, if sent via PM, would have satisfied your objectives and relieved the thread of this silly bickering. This ends the bickering on my part as I have put you on ignore and will no longer reply to any of your posts of substance or otherwise. As you are now on ignore, you will be wasting yours, mine, and the valued threads time with any replies to my posts of a nitpicking nature. You stated>>” Yes, you have "gotten off on the wrong foot with me". Do you think yelling, and cheerleading, and self-aggrandizing, and soliciting support for your opinions, might have anything to do with that?”<<< I believe this post probably started my problem with you as I failed to take your advice and move my posting to the other thread ( FWIW I had a number of PMs of support). 1. 1/20/03 P# 31428 Posts with personal valuation calls, broker/analyst recommendations and targets, broker/analyst bashing, discussions about the general economy, and cheer-leading have and cheer-leading have traditionally been on the QCOM - Buy Range thread 2.. Wednesday, Feb 26, 2003 11:50 AM P32879 >>That a potential wireless operator is also a non-wireless operator is irrelevant, IMHO. << 3.. February 26, 2003 9:26 AM ET >>A link to the article would have been adequate.<< 4. Sunday, Feb 23, 2003 2:17 PM Buying range P#127130 >>Jim, what's with the third party posting technique? If you have issues with a poster, you need to post to him or her. To do otherwise is analogous to talking behind someone's back. It doesn't improve your status one iota. << 5. Sunday, Feb 16, 2003 8:49 PM P#32484 Jim, re "One final thought. The accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy by the U.S. perhaps delayed the deployment of CDMA in China by up to one year. I was told that NATO provided the targeting information on which that bombing run was based. Now if one believes in conspiracy theories...." >>Is this really the right place for derogatory political innuendo, with criminal implications? :-( << 6. Sunday, Feb 2, 2003 8:34 AM P#31979 Don Mosher writes "Nokia will adapt eventually by using Qualcomm ASICs." You write "Nokia [edit: will announce] that they will be using Qualcomm chipsets exclusively in all of their CDMA and GSM/GPRS/CDMA phones." >>Do you not see these as statements of "hope" in misleading posts? How does that differ from Nokia's statements of “plans” in misleading PRs? Personally, I see very little difference. If you have evidence, even anecdotal, that Nokia is taking steps towards incorporating QCOM chipsets in their handsets, present it to the thread. If not, please stop the repetition of speculation. << Jim’s edit- I never stated Nokia was taking steps in that direction. This is what I wrote in reference to the list of “13 Potential Events” >>>#1. Nokia announces that they will be using Qualcomm chipsets exclusively in all of their CDMA and GSM/GPRS/CDMA phones. <<<<<, not as you mischaracterized it above. 7.. Tuesday, Jan 28, 2003 8:38 AM P#31807 Do you plan on doing that for the rest of the year? Confucious say "When others say .. 'You were correct', it is congratulations. When you say .. 'I was correct', it is bragging". >>>Jim’s reply to Ron with no reply from Ron- It wasn’t meant to be bragging. Believe it or not, I seriously considered how to reword the statement “on my list of 13 Potential events” when I first wrote it as I thought it could be taken by some as “bragging”. I was merely trying to address the progress of those events. Ron, please re-write that for me so as not to convey “bragging” on my part. <<<<