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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pompsander who wrote (87560)	1/2/2004 9:25:53 AM
From: Jill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Message 19646432

To: pompsander who wrote (87560)	1/5/2004 2:25:49 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi pompsander; Re: "Well, Carl, you just lost me....while I thought you were posting to inform people and try to distribute information, as well as comment, your post now says you only post on the thread to "amuse yourself" and be able to say "I told you so"." Why don't you go back in through my voluminous posting history and find a single post where I've said that my objective was to "inform people and try to distribute information"? I don't think that it is possible to "inform people and distribute information". If you've read some of my posts and ended up "informed", or had information "distributed" to you, it's through your own efforts not mine. Re: "So, maybe truth isn't as important as amusing yourself? Would you post a factual analysis which supported Rambus if it did not "amuse you" to do so? " I found it very amusing to inform the people on this thread that RDRAM was a dying technology at a time when the management of Rambus was saying that their technology was the only solution available to industry and that DDR would never make it. There are times when the truth is far more amusing than any fiction. Re: "I guess my problem in trying to deal with you ..." You have a problem dealing with me? The hell for? If you don't like what I write you have the option of ignoring it like all other longs. Re: "... if amusement is not involved for you to post, neither will be the truth, no matter how you see it." This is the typical logical mistake of a lawyer. Since lawyers are inherently unable to think through technical issues for themselves, they must always rely on comments by people who do understand the technical issues. But this leaves them as helpless as babies in the woods, if they are unable to determine which technical advice is the truth. All the "mom and pop" investors face the same issue. Hell, even technical people, as soon as they walk outside the narrow confines of their own discipline, are unable to make subtle technical judgements as to the superiority of one engineering design over another. Sure they can conclude that an SR-71 is a better designed airplane (for spying) than a Wright Flyer, but to have them choose between, for example, two modern fighters is hopeless. As far as the general public is concerned, even that part of the general public that has advanced degrees in physics and engineering, there is no way for them to understand which technologies are superior in the memory industry. Face the fact. You do not have enough technical understanding to be investing in technical stocks based on your understanding. You do not even have enough technical understanding to know when you're being BSed and when you're being told facts. Rambus used this fact, the fact that not just the general public, but in fact even the very well educated general public is ignorant to sell their stock, and their ideas. Their biggest success, in fact, was in selling their crappy ideas to Intel management. So no, from a very basic standpoint, you are not in a position to understand any of the technical arguments I write. Sure I could stand up in court, put a hand on a Bible, and swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God", but the fact is that whatever comes out of my lips would be a sequence of sounds that you would have no way of understanding as being true or false. Hey, maybe you should believe Rambus management instead, LOL. The guys who, at their 2000 shareholder's meeting, brought out estimates that 50% of the DRAM market would be RDRAM in 2003, and that, therefore, there was no reason for the shareholders to have to worry about the legal situation as Rambus would take over the market whether they won the patent fights or not. At that time I was claiming that Intel had already decided to dump RDRAM, and that RDRAM would slowly drop to an insignificant portion of the memory market. So who are you going to believe now? The people running Rambus, who do not hide behind an anonymous SI name, but who told you that RDRAM was winning at the same time that they knew (according to their own testimony in court) that DDR would probably win? Or the guy who not only won't use his name, but, in addition, tells you that he's posting for his own amusement, but who also told you that the memory industry was dumping RDRAM two years before the Rambus crowd admitted it? Hell of a choice, ain't it. Oh, I guess you could also choose to believe the journalists who know nothing about the industry except what they are told by people who regularly lie to them. -- Carl