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 (260280)	5/15/2009 7:42:21 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Got any proof for that? Or is this still more speculation? Of course it was speculation, just like this statement of your's: The million processor deal was almost certainly not for Opteron. Got any proof of that?

To: combjelly who wrote (260280)	5/15/2009 9:14:51 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

CJ, > The million processor deal was almost certainly not for Opteron. volesoft.com > Some gems remain in the acres of text covered in masking tape. On page 29 of the filing, the plaintiff’s joint preliminary case, “redacted”, we learn that AMD offered HP a million Opterons free but HP only would take 160,000. Tenchusatsu

To: combjelly who wrote (260280)	5/15/2009 10:15:33 PM
From: Elmer Phud	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

The million processor deal was almost certainly not for Opteron. On page 29 of the filing, the plaintiff’s joint preliminary case, “redacted”, we learn that AMD offered HP a million Opterons free but HP only would take 160,000. volesoft.com Now, if I had made the statement you made above, and you posted the link following it, as I have here, you'd be calling me a liar and attributing all kinds of sinister motives to my post. You'd also most likely be doing it in a post to someone else rather than directly to me. I'm not going to sink to your level because I can allow for the likely possibility that you simply made an error. I didn't know they were all Opterons either until I saw this link. I'm also not going to invent a position you've never claimed or quote statements you never made, and then when challenged, support it by digging up old links that say the exact opposite of what I just invented. I'm not going to insist you continuously make this false claim, even though I could and support it with as much evidence as you have supported your similar imaginary claim about me. I'll just point out that, according to this article, you made an error and leave it at that, knowing full well that you would call me a liar were I to make a similar mistake.