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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Engel who wrote (44599)	1/9/1998 1:55:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 186894

INTC: NATNBK MONT.SEC has reiterated estimate for fiscal year ending 12/97 of $3.78 on 01/08/98 INTC: NATNBK MONT.SEC has reiterated estimate for fiscal year ending 12/98 of $4.05 on 01/08/98

To: Paul Engel who wrote (44599)	1/9/1998 2:08:00 AM
From: Mo Chips	Respond to of 186894

Ok, you win... Just don't sue me like the other people you like.... best.com Mo

To: Paul Engel who wrote (44599)	1/9/1998 1:21:00 PM
From: Burt Masnick	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Paul: Maybe it's El Nino, but this thread has turned pretty weird in the last three months. There seem to be three distinct flavors of Intel detractors running loose. 1) - It must go down because (take your pick) AMD, Cyrix or (heaven help us) the Power PC is clearly a superior technology house and therefor Intel must crash in an immediate, total and irrevocable swoon. Kind of ignores the facts but these guys are religious fanatics and kind of have an "anyone but intel" attitude that just won't quit. 2) - It must go down because Intel is THE EVIL EMPIRE, crushing all virtuous and pure competitors with hellish schemes, duping both the public and the boxmakers left and right, for the last decade. Course, this same group complains about the high prices that Intel charges, indicating that the boxmakers and the public are not only being had, but they are exceptionally stupid since wonderful alternatives are readily available (see 1 above). 3) - It must go down because YOU, Paul Engel, are a bad person who has been evil in pointing out technology issues, architecture issues, compatibility issues and business issues. By dint of your immense influence alone, the entire world has been dazzled into overpaying seriously for INTC. Fortunately, these folks are around to set the world straight about your evil ways and clearly, investors round the world will now see the light and abandon (or even short) INTC to punish you. Sometimes there's a combination of these, but usually these folks go for pure 1, 2 or 3. If I were you, I'd take 3 as an incredible compliment and laugh all the way to the bank. Personally, I'd rather see the kind of discussion that used to take place on this thread about products and prospects, but that seems to be out of vogue. Please keep up the good work. Best regards, Burt