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: Elmer Phud who wrote (268963)	1/9/2012 3:34:28 PM
From: rzborusa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

You don't know if it could be substantiated. You do know if it could be "unsubstantiated" it would be with all expediency. Brass butt would be all over any false allegations. eg: suppose Intel only payed Dell XX rebate $. You think they would just sit there with their thumbs up. Accounting 101

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (268963)	1/9/2012 4:03:54 PM
From: fastpathguru	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>Actually, these are not allegations. They're descriptions of evidence that the allegations (i.e. CLAIMS) are based upon. You know, stuff that they could substantiate in court if need be. Evidence that could be presented in Court. You don't know if it could be substantiated. You misunderstood me Elmer. The descriptions of the evidence could be substantiated in court with the actual evidence. (It's not unreasonable to assume that the evidence being used to build the case actually exists, even if it's being interpreted in a way that benefits the prosecution.) It has not stood up to cross examination, nor has it withstood exculpatory evidence that could be presented in defense, not that that would be of any interest to you. So, as usual, you are presenting one side of the story as though it was the whole story. It's not. Fortunately, there are two sides. That's why your side is called an unproven allegation. Yes, there would be a debate over the interpretation of the evidence. Unfortunately for you, so far, nobody has presented Intel's side in "A court of law"... So your mystery factors have not ben enumerated or quantified, your rogue salesman has not been fingered, your "alternate interpretations" have not been elucidated... Hey Elmer, guess what? There's no law that says my personal opinion of must be to consider Intel innocent until proven guilty. *Please forgive me for finding the SEC's presentation more persuasive than your personally-conjured series of "but-what-ifs". If I lay your case down next to the SEC's, yours, well... Lacks.** fpg *and company...