You keep attacking me. . . when I am NOT THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE, yet you keep escalating the calumny.
I reported NOTHING, I merely posted an article, but YOU attributed the article, a CNBC news report on the hiring of an ex-employee of AMD by Intel as something more than it was, and imputed to me some nefarious attempt to hide information for some reason. That is a scurrilous accusation and dishonest on your part, and you keep doubling down on your behavior instead of just apologizing and going away.
I stated in my post which you somehow find offensive, and worthy of continually attacking me over:
"This should make things more interesting in the future of graphic processor competition."
The very first sentence in the CNBC article says, verbtim:
"The battle over the red-hot graphics chip market just got more interesting.
Is there much different about my statement and the statement in the article? No, there is not. Yet YOU decided I had to be brought to task for some imagined plot to make Intel the villain (where? How? Does anyone see me claiming such a thing?) and a failure to write a thesis on the subject of graphic chip competition in the modern economy.
BTW, I don’t think we were talking about Apple here. Letting your imagination wander can get you in deep trouble.
No, we are NOT talking about Apple here, and I pointed that out, but that is the source of your ridiculous existing animosity toward me. You attack me in Apple threads and that animosity has apparently and irrationally spilled over into this innocuous tech thread. GIVE IT A REST, adorno, your irrationality getting very old.
This article does NOT cover that partnership subject in any detail, but only touches on it peripherally, but strangely Intel's November 9th official news release announcing Koduri's hiring, three days AFTER the partnership announcement, specifically refers to Intel "taking on AMD competitively through this hiring". . . I do not have to make that association for people own conclusions.
I just corrected the record, and saying that what you reported is not the whole story, is not the same as attacking you. Stop being a baby that gets upset so easily. Aren’t you like 90 plus? ;)
The childish behavior in this thread is YOU, trying to make a mountain of importance that does NOT EXIST out of a molehill of a single sentence of comment I posted that no one else can comprehend from what I wrote because the ARTICLE DOES NOT ADDRESS WHAT YOU ARE INFERRING IS THERE.
An adult would have just brought up the partnership announced just three days earlier and discussed what this hiring and current announcement what kind of affect "going after AMD competitively" would have on that partnership, not take the opportunity to attack the poster or any other person in the thread who had NOT brought that subject up. But NO, you had to smear me, making a negative connotation on what I had posted as though I had made some kind of deliberate post to hide something. That was dishonest.
Yet you continue to attack the person, me, who did nothing except post the original article for everyones' consideration. My statement that the "future of graphic chips was going to be interesting" is COMPLETELY TRUE, and that is the only thing I wrote that even looks like a judgement or opinion I posted, YET YOU IRRATIONALLY ATTACKED ME for not writing a complete analysis including what might happen with NVIDIA???
Let me make this completely clear, even for someone who seems to be as dense as you or who seems to have a reading comprehension problem, adorno;
I made ZERO judgements on whether Intel hiring the ex-AMD guy was good or bad, but YOU jumped on me immediately and made the assumption that I was painting Intel as somehow being the villain? Exactly how? I posted a fairly neutral article announcing his hiring. I made the comment the future of graphic processors is going to be interesting, and pinged the Apple Ping List and also pinged dayglored for the Windows list's attention. HOW IS THAT MAKING ANY JUDGEMENT AT ALL????
My shock is that someone in the thread, YOU, is attacking anyone for bringing neutral information to the table.
You are still being very defensive.
Look, if you want to defend yourself, trying to overwhelm with your very long and wordy responses, won’t work.
The best way to defend yourself is by presenting the truth, and you keep skating past the truth. In fact, you skated past the truth with your initial post, where you chose a CNBC article which FAILED to present the whole story, and that’s a well-known tactic of liberals, especially the liberal networks. If you wish to present a factual piece of “news”, then, do a little bit of research before “picking” or “choosing” from a selection of one. YOUR choice did not present all the facts or the whole story.
So, why not acknowledge that perhaps the “other evidence” that I presented was more of the whole story than that which you chose. No need to be defensive about nothing much.
Being a grumpy old man will not make you any younger. ;)