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: fastpathguru who wrote (241467)	9/29/2007 5:43:35 PM
From: wbmw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Re: So far you've given me nothing, while I've provided links that support my position. Links that authoritatively, directly contradict your idea. Actually, what I've done is taken your links and offered a second perspective. You are so enraptured in your own opinion that the best you can say is: Re: you are simply wrong. Frankly, I consider it childish of you to state this so definitively, while not addressing my actual arguments. I've had a lot more to say in my other posts that you have chosen not to acknowledge. It tells me that you are aiming to shoot down particular sentences, while completely glossing over the more important aspects. At least give me the courtesy of showing me that you've read and understood my point of view before pounding the table with quotes like the above. Re: Your tactic of discrediting anyone and everyone who doesn't support your preconceptoins is getting tiresome. The MIT economics professor I quoted was an expert witness in the MS antitrust case, which the prosecution won. Who are you? I can see why you think the MIT professor should be taken seriously, but I actually don't think you have understood exactly what he has said. In my previous post, I called out a particular piece of the professor's reasoning that relates competitive environments to protecting the consumer. That's the crux of what I am saying. The fact that the courts decided that Microsoft's practices were destroying any hope of competitive products coming out (in the case of free Media Player installs, which gave consumers little incentive to pay for competitive products), does not in any way conclude that Intel should be found guilty in their entirely different scenario. You say that the facts are obvious, and that I am being stupid for ignoring them, but you have yet to tell me what Intel has done that is harmful for consumers. Unless you can relate their proven behaviors back to harming the consumer, as the courts did in the case of Microsoft, I don't think you have a case to claim that Intel's behaviors are obviously harmful.