Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD)

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)

Previous 10 Next 10

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (275840)	10/31/2018 2:39:26 PM
From: combjelly	of 275869

Hilarious. What you did was to gang up with your buddies and harrassed the ones who didn't believe in The One True Intel until they.moved on. And so one of the more.vibrant and active groups died. Because of you.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: combjelly who wrote (275841)	10/31/2018 3:38:11 PM
From: Elmer Phud	of 275869

Nonsense. The censorship by previous moderators is what killed it. I won't put the blame on you but you didn't help.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (275842)	10/31/2018 6:10:05 PM
From: combjelly	of 275869

Bullshit. Revisionist history. This is a moderated forum. And that.means the job of the.moderator is to make sure that the forum operates smoothly. The decline in posters did not start until you turned it into a forum dedicated to attacking anyone who wasn't anti-AMD. Led by yourself. Anyway, any thoughts on Intel blowing their process lead? Being relegated to a second tier manufacturer? And one with poor yields on their second rate process?

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: combjelly who wrote (275843)	10/31/2018 6:22:16 PM
From: Elmer Phud	of 275869

CJ Your perspective is tainted by your hatred of Intel. Past moderators would have banned you if you had expressed such criticism of AMD. This moderator believes in free and open discussion so posters can express their views without fear of repercussions. In the past I was quite critical of AMD's extremely unethical tactics and was quite willing to challenge those who claimed otherwise. Through it all, Intel was never found guilty by any Court of Law anywhere in the world. Now if you want to have a serious discussion, try asking a serious question.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (275844)	10/31/2018 7:36:51 PM
From: combjelly	of 275869

More revisionist history. A) I don't hate Intel. B) No one ever got.banned for disliking AMD. People got banned for attacking other posters. A lot of Intel snowflakes used to try to.justify their bad behavior by claiming it was their beliefs that got them banned, but it was their behavior. I asked several serious questions. It is objectively obvious that Intel has slipped behind in process. And won't regain parity, much less the lead, any time soon. If ever. So, what do you think?

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: combjelly who wrote (275845)	10/31/2018 8:13:15 PM
From: Elmer Phud	of 275869

cj A) I don't hate Intel. Sure. B) No one ever got.banned for disliking AMD. Maybe not by you but you forgot Rink who explicitly said he was banning people for their thoughts. He could tell what they were thinking. If I would apply his rules then you would have been banned already. I asked several serious questions. In a snarky way. Save your hate for someone who wants to play that game.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (275846)	2/18/2019 8:23:48 PM
From: combjelly	of 275869

There you go again. It is sort of funny how you complain that Rink was able to read thoughts and you claim to be able to read my mind as to whether I have Intel or not. Personally, I think you are mis-stating what Rink had actually posted. Even if true, that would have been a single moderator. And that doesn't make a trend. It is duly noted that you refuse to answer my questions. Because the truth hurts.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (2)

To: combjelly who wrote (275847)	2/18/2019 9:40:21 PM
From: greg s	of 275869

If your reply had been more timely, perhaps the reader would have an idea of what you are talking about.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read

To: combjelly who wrote (275847)	2/28/2019 8:36:47 PM
From: Elmer Phud	of 275869

CJ, If I understand what question you were asking, Intel is years late with their new process. I won't say they're behind because calling a new process 10nm or 7nm is mostly a marketing ploy. But no doubt about it. Intel is very very late.

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read Read Replies (1)

To: Elmer Phud who wrote (275849)	3/1/2019 11:51:39 AM
From: combjelly	of 275869

Fair eno

Share	KeepReply Mark as Last Read