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: Elmer Phud who wrote (165173)	7/13/2005 8:11:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

You have a different standard of what constitutes "evidence" than I do. In order to fall under the definition of the word evidence, it doesn't have to be admissible in court. It also doesn't have to be solid. For example you can have "inadmissable evidence", and you can have "weak evidence". Hearsay evidence is still evidence even if it is not admissible under most circumstances and also normally would not qualify as "strong evidence" even outside a court of law. Tim

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (165173)	7/13/2005 8:22:10 PM
From: dougSF30	Respond to of 275872

Yeah Elmer, you're unique all right.

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (165173)	7/14/2005 3:03:52 AM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Clearly you have already made your determination without seeing any of the evidence (except AMD's hearsay) so there is no point discussing it any further with you. I will however wait to hear both sides of the story. That makes me rather unique here. Man, I've been confronted with that same line, practically word for word, by at least 5 people for merely discussing the case from AMD's perspective. The "impartial opponent," before bailing with the above, nevertheless often argues from the perspective that nothing illegal has happened. Often naively. Sometimes aggressively and insultingly. I swear, this message is either coming from a common source or has been latched onto because it's just such an easy way to avoid getting cornered or to squash debate altogether. fpg

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (165173)	7/18/2005 11:11:05 AM
From: KeithDust2000	Respond to of 275872

ephud, Clearly you have already made your determination without seeing any of the evidence (except AMD's hearsay) so there is no point discussing it any further with you. I will however wait to hear both sides of the story. That makes me rather unique here. It makes you a hypocrite. Can anyone comment on what damages Intel will be entitled to when AMD's suit is shown to be the fraud it is? investorshub.com Why? Because they have no interest in finding the facts, they have already convicted Intel in their own minds. [...] As I said, I have a difference standard. Yes, your standard is obvious.