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 (212141)	10/1/2006 2:39:01 PM
From: rzborusa	Respond to of 275872

Did you get permission from Duke to disclose his personal info, qualifications? Is he sitting next to you?

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (212141)	10/2/2006 8:51:21 AM
From: fastpathguru	Respond to of 275872

>Yes, and I easily debunked the product of that expertise. Not in my view. BTW, don't get hurt patting yourself on the back. You did mention that you had comprehension issues... >Please indicate to me where I stated or implied this "premise." "Your honor, Billy knew murder was wrong, and he even went to church every Sunday. Therefore, he could not have committed this murder!" This is where I think you and some others are being intellectually dishonest. Uhh, speaking of intellectually dishonest, this "Billy" quote: A) Did not come from the post in question: B) Is not an assertion that a crime has been committed; it is a rebuttal to a Blue Team theory of defense which implies that NO CRIME COULD HAVE been committed, and the analogy DOES NOT require Intel to have committed a crime to be legitimate, and does not imply that they have. It merely demonstrates that THAT PARTICULAR LINE OF DEFENSE IS BOGUS. It is, actually, YOU who are OVERLY SENSITIVE to anything NOT POSITIVE for Intel, including NEUTRAL arguments. So, all this... You operate from the premise of both crime and guilt when it hasn't even been shown that a crime has taken place. You are not waiting for a crime to be established, you've already moved on to not only the guilt phase, but the appropriate punishment phase. That's intellectually dishonest imo. As such, we are simply wasting bandwidth arguing when we can't even agree on what we're arguing about. You're arguing about the guilt of a crime that hasn't been shown to have happened. To continue is folly. ... is just more blowing smoke... It will all come out in the wash. ... but that's not surprising since all you can do is repeat your anthem. fpg