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: combjelly who wrote (260206)	5/14/2009 5:14:23 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

CJ, > The AMD parts in question didn't suck. It would have sucked if the OEM had to break existing contracts just to make room for CPUs that AMD dumped onto them. Or flood the market with computers built with "free" CPUs. There's always barriers to entry. The advantage has to be good enough to overcome the barriers. AMD did it all on their own, yet the EU thinks AMD could have done it faster and in a more profitable manner without Intel's oh-so-monopolistic behavior. In the meantime, dumping one million CPUs that no one else wanted is the fault of the supplier, not the competitor. Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (260206)	5/14/2009 9:11:57 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

cj - I would appreciate it if you would stop inventing my position and then refuting it in posts to others. It's bad form. I've limited my debate with you to posts to you, not posts to others falsely restating your position then ridiculing you for what I invent. My position is simple, I'd like to see the evidence. So far we haven't. Your position has been to claim we have seen evidence when in fact we haven't. For your claims to be correct we must redefine evidence to include rumor and statements about evidence to be actual evidence itself. If we stick to a strict definition of evidence, being something legally presented to a court, such as a statement of a witness or an object[document]. I will even stretch the definition to allow the EU to stand in for the court for the purposes of this definition. You have taken liberties with calling others liars when expecting people to remember obscure year old posts when you provide no links and misspell the company's name. I might take your lead and start a post to someone else, invent your position and then make fun of you there but I'd rather point out your false postings to you directly.