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 : Micron Only Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavidG who wrote (26703)	1/17/1998 4:37:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 53903

david (and anybody that may take you seriously - all 2 of them ;-), >MU is the low cost producer of 16mb chips.<< you say this is true by your own authority - and you have no sources other than what mu management thinks (they will not state it as fact). when you make the statement you have to back it up. if i were to say the earth was flat and said it was true until you disproved it i'd be silly. do you get the correlation? this is EXACTLY how silly you sound. "neener, neener, neener, i say it is true and it is 'till you prove it isn't." that isn't the way rational people go about finding out about truth. it is 180% opposite of the scientific method. i haven't the faintest clue what the japanese, taiwanese, koreans, chinese or anybody else makes dram chips for. i never said i did. you, david, say you do because you know mu is lower. so prove your statement. if you can't prove it then be a man and fess up to this fact. we all know you have know reliable sources so you wouldn't be telling us anything new. also, you said that you were obviously always talking about gross cost in to compare with other companies. do you deny saying this now? if not, who are the companies and what is their gross cost. oh, and please cite sources. you call me dense. the reason i bring it up is b/c you are unable to answer these very simple and straightforward questions. i get the impression you are bullsh*t artist, dave. please answer the questions (or at least refuse to answer them) and this discussion will be over. hey, you always tip the desperateness of your situation when you start calling people names and insulting them (and it isn't like that smoke screen diverts my attention away from the fact you ignore very clear and concise questions. ;-) one more time: 1. what are your sources, if any, for saying mu is the low cost producer? 2. what other companies did you compare mu's gross cost to, what was their cost and what was your source (assuming you don't now deny claiming that, sybil ;-). if you fail to answer these questions that i've asked two times already then we'll all assume you are merely loosely throwing around hopes as statements of fact.