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: rkral who wrote (181386)	5/28/2005 10:47:27 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Ron, in the interest of other readers, let's begin to wind this conversation down here. RE: "What I knew is that you hadn't posted anything about exploitation of employees" Actually, I did. But not in your detailed style. So you dismissed it. The main point I'm driving home is, we have different posting styles. I'll state something at a more conceptual level, and you dismiss it unless there are detailed links. In part, that's why I've been posting to you over the past few days - just to help us try to understand we have different posting styles. The reality is, startups have long hours. So you should ask what makes EA different than the rest. There was an exploitive nature that crossed the line with EA - what I conceptually summarized as poor relations - an imbalance between the two classes. This is the problem with focusing at the detail level, rather than the conceptual level. Sometimes the main point soars right over head. RE: "The truth is often not revealed until the details are examined. For example" But you assumed you had all the details. RE: "I try to assume as little as possible." My recommendation would be to try to ask, rather than assume. RE: "So you think a consumer beach head is irrelevant to Intel's corporate mobile business? Don't think..." My general recommendation would be not to assume a lack of connection. A connection may not be obvious to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I believe Intel sees the connection. The reason why I'm investing time in our posts here, so you and I have a better understanding of our different posting styles. Over the past year, we seem to be hitting upon a repeated pattern, where I make a point that you dismiss because I think you prefer to look at things at the detailed level rather than the conceptual level. For example, I recall on the Cisco thread last year I made a conceptual point and your response was basically I don't believe you unless you have a link to details. This is the sore point for me that I'm actually getting at in our posting style differences. Maybe the point I'm trying to convey in our posts here with each other is: - please try to ask, rather than assume (some of us don't have time to post links to details that we already know, but you tend to hold that against this poster) - people sometimes may occasionally operate at a conceptual level, rather than the detailed level, that shouldn't mean that equates to a dismissal of their point - you are a very detailed person and a HUGE contribution to the thread, but sometimes I have the impression you discount things stated at the conceptual level, unless it's restated at a detailed level with links to details. (At least, that's how it feels.) Regards, Amy J