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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kech who wrote (302454)	9/6/2006 4:46:00 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586810

Kech, you just earned yourself an entry to Ted's list of VIP Ignores ;) Taro

To: kech who wrote (302454)	9/6/2006 6:56:32 PM
From: kech	Respond to of 1586810

Ok - wrong link. Here is the second post after the original and this one has the bold. Message 22783686 Funny thing, I started with just the exerpt, to make it really easy for the reading challenged. Then I was asked to give the context, so I gave the whole article with the critical part boled. Guess what? Nobody read that far and complained about how hard I was making it.

To: kech who wrote (302454)	9/6/2006 8:49:05 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1586810

Please follow instructions tejek. Sure here is the article that cited it. See bold at the bottom of the article. again, read the bold at the bottom where Scarborough quotes the Washington Post. Message 22783324; Yes, I saw it.........but what I also saw was an article from the WA Times. Since I had already read the paragraph, I didn't read it again and missed the part where it said it was from a WA Post article. Clearly, like CJ, I misunderstood your instructions but why in hell would you present it in such a clumsy fashion? Wouldn't it have made more sense to link directly to the WA Post article instead of going through the WA Times article?