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 : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: A.J. Mullen who wrote (102904)	6/15/2011 2:57:21 PM
From: BDAZZ	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197296

Basically he called an article on PJ, BS. I asked him to post the parts he thought were lies so we could address them and he could not. In this case I have to assume he posted with some other agenda, perhaps he's just negative Qcom. But no, he says he owns the stock. So yes, now I don't take his negativity as seriously as if it came from someone who was bearish on Qcom. So I exit the debate because he did not state his position in addressable specifics, and as negative as he sounds he still thinks a lot of this company and it's CEO or he would sell. Of course we here can disagree. But what's good about this board is that it debates on a higher standard. The arguments are productive, as opposed to arguments that are simply to incite anger. I've seen J. Mullins and Slacker go at it so good I've recced one post then recced the response because it answered so well. What I never see is one using obvious ineffective arguments, such as "Qcom is a bad company because they should be doing better." or "Qcom should have more chips in the IPad." State which chips they should have in there and how and when Qcom should have left their core expertise to focus on an unproven market to have a product ready for the IPad. Recently Slacker held a poster to task for making broad negative statements with no specific data to back it up. Once the specifics were out the thread ended quickly in a definitive conclusion. Everybody here profits in these kinds of threads. Unlike the "This article is all BS" which is just there to incite bad feelings. And as hot as those Slacker/Mullins debates get never has one called the other narrow minded or any other name. In general posters here know that if they feel the need to bolster their argument with name calling, it's just proving how weak their argument is.