Re: A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations

"Robert Myers" <rbmyersusa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:c53141e1-0fc8-4351-b4d3-36afc071e992@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Oct 9, 9:47 am, chrisv <chr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Robert Myers wrote:
> >On Oct 8, 10:12 am, chrisv <chr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> Gosh, you are smart. Only you (and the blogger) have figured-out 
> >> that
> >> AMD decided to do this not because they thought it was in the 
> >> best
> >> interest of the company and its stockholders, but because they 
> >> have a
> >> benevolent streak toward bankers.
>
> >There are plenty of people who would agree that cor****ate 
> >management,
> >often acting on the advice of outside consultants, frequently do 
> >not
> >act in the best interests of shareholders.
>
> So? The fact that things are "sometimes wrong" is evidence that
> something is "wrong" with this deal?
>
> Sorry, but it's not.

Now *you're* an expert?  I don't think you pay attention to what you
write.  You were sarcastic that I had the nerve to question AMD's all-
knowing management.  I pointed out that the kind of criticism that
both I and the blogger offered is fairly common.  Whether it's
accurate criticism of this deal or not is beside the point.  As usual,
everyone who doesn't agree with you and cheer for AMD is an idiot--at
least from your point of view.

If you already knew what the blogger said or if you had some
subatantive response, you didn't say so.  Instead, you did what you
usually do: ridicule and bluster.

Robert.

Silly me.  I guessed that this was an effort for AMD to survive as a 
semi-fabless organization, regardless of the statement of a previous 
ceo "real men own fabs".  But Jerry Sanders is long gone from AMD and 
fabs are extremely expensive.

If I ask nice would all you guys quit fighting about who is smarter 
etc?  Me, I'm glad I didn't buy AMD at 40 in 2006....
Anyway, the bickering is sort of offputting.

del