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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (60198)	5/21/1999 12:12:00 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Michael, I am sorry if the tone was accusatory; it was not meant to be. I will also have to go through the data I have and see if indeed AMAT at one time was involved in a fab. I don't an investment by AMAT like the one you mention, but it seems throughout the past year I've been more wrong than right:-) BTW, to the best of your knowledge does AMAT still have a stake in this fab? BK

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (60198)	5/21/1999 7:12:00 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 132070

Michael, Re:but you have to give me time to find the data before calling me a liar. I have given you time and yet no mention of AMAT's investment in the ghost-fab. Now I will call you a liar. Why don't you stop by the AMAT thread and enlighten all of us? The simple answer is that this type of inaccurate(Read: lying) posting would not go unchallenged as it is on this thread where you seem to have a little following. You should be proud. <Yes, that was sarcasm you heard> I suppose AMAT will be placing the bulk of these orders too???? 204.247.196.14