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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (213012)	10/9/2006 11:50:59 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Ten, I've been looking around on some of the enthusiast BB's like Anandtech forums etc. and the Cornholio is all they talk about and most of what they recommending. That said, based on what AMDs stock did when they were all recommending Athlons, Intels stock is in deep trouble. <G>

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (213012)	10/9/2006 12:06:13 PM
From: plantlife	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

The question was about Intel's mandatory anti-trust law training for their sales and marketing people. Plantlife couldn't believe Intel does it and even accused Golfbum of being a flat-out liar. That tells you more about Plantlife than anything else. _____________________ Apparently you are used to making judgments with half the story, but the other half was, the G-bum making an extrapolation that since all this schooling was done, it meant there was no violations of the law. He refused to accept my comment that he could speak for only one Intel employee out of 100,000, namely himself. I asked him to read the brief, so he would know what he was talking about, but he stuck to his lame argument. That being an obvious intransigent attitude was the reason I challenged his claim to be an Intel employee. On a message board such as this, we have people claiming to be lawyers also, but there is no proof required, and each must be taken on faith, and when there is none, on ones best judgment. Anyway, the thing that bothers you about me, is my preference for AMD. I could post here and lie through my teeth about Intel's Quad Core Chip, and that would be great in your biased opinion. So, your negative opinion is in my view, a compliment, and the comment you just posted, another character assassination, similar to the one your ally made.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (213012)	10/9/2006 1:14:39 PM
From: Petz	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 275872

Golfbum shut up pretty quick when I asked him what Intel taught its employees on the subject of "first dollar rebates." I'm still waiting for an answer. So let me extend the question to anyone who has taken Intel's training. By Intel employee's silence, I am assuming that Intel did NOT teach that it was illegal, and therefore expect AMD to win the case on that ground alone, probably the most serious of all the charges in the suit. Message 22867632 To: golfbum who wrote (212174 of 212123) 10/2/2006 1:42:46 AM From: Petz 1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) Let me ask you a simple questions, GOLFBUM? 1. Do you believe it is legal for Intel to charge a price of $X for CPU's to a particular OEM in a quarter, but if the OEM buys more than N CPU's, the price for ALL CPU's in that quarter will go down by some number, Z? 2. What if instead of lowering the price, Intel agrees to subsidize marketing only if a certain number of CPU's are bought? PETZ