Intel is Tonya Harding

[MavericK]

That's almost as dumb as saying that you have two dogs, that you let hunt for their own food. The one dog has always been good at hunting, and easily gets his own meals. The other, newer and inexperienced dog, was always lagging behind and just got enough to get by. Eventually the newer dog surprised you and started to consistently outdo the veteran, but both had plenty of food. You then decided to experiment, and although the younger dog would easily catch prey, you would only let it eat a tiny portion of what it caught (deserved), and gave the rest to the veteran dog. Eventually the younger one started to lose weight, and became unfit, unable to catch most prey. At that point, do you think it makes any sense to bitch at the younger dog because it sucks now and can't catch it's own meals?

That analogy makes no sense for this situation. Who exactly is the "person" who takes away the food represented by in the real situation? There was no external source "stealing" money from AMD.

A more accurate analogy would be that the larger dog started hunting almost all of the animals itself and there were hardly any left for the younger dog. Honestly, that's survival of the fittest. However, again, even this corrected analogy doesn't really make the most sense, given the reality.

 

[RangerXML]

Intel just skipped a couple of generations in terms of technology. Maybe it would be better for all if we passed strict rules about none competition and advancement of technology. After all, we only need computers that are so and so fast. Wait, we have the EU for that (dumb asses).

 

[NoEcho]

AMD has better teeth but Intel can suck the chrome off a pipe, [see attached picture, Evidence 1].

 

[RangerXML]

...what picture??

 

[NoEcho]

This work?

 

[oldpablo]

That analogy makes no sense for this situation. Who exactly is the "person" who takes away the food represented by in the real situation? There was no external source "stealing" money from AMD.

A more accurate analogy would be that the larger dog started hunting almost all of the animals itself and there were hardly any left for the younger dog. Honestly, that's survival of the fittest. However, again, even this corrected analogy doesn't really make the most sense, given the reality.

No that just makes the silly analogy worse and doesn't at all incorporate what the actual issue was. The larger dog working with the owner of the hunting grounds (Dell/HP/all OEMs) to restrict the smaller dog to a vastly smaller hunting ground is more accurate. This is not about AMD having ability, they've proven again and again that they can innovate and produce despite Intel screwing them over. The issue however is they have had to play in an unfair market against steeper odds then they should have been. Having less resources/money restricts who the talent they can hire/train, how many, what R&D they have, etc. It is essentially two men racing bicycles except one of them keeps slashing the tires of the other.

 

[oldpablo]

Also if I recall by way of a specific example, one of the reasons some of the larger OEMs opted away from AMD even when they had the superior product is because they worried that AMD couldn't produce enough chips to meet the demand of their sales to customers. Why? Resource choking once again, you can't build more fabs and ramp up production when you are being stifled in the market and can't earn the money you deserve.

 

[MavericK]

This is not about AMD having ability, they've proven again and again that they can innovate and produce despite Intel screwing them over.

Obviously not, since they haven't. All we've heard so far from them is bitching and whining about how wronged they were.

I'm not saying Intel wasn't unfair, but I'm with several other people in this thread: AMD needs to shut up with the PR whining and get back to this "innovation" they seem to have forgotten about the past few years.

 

[Usquabach]

I think most of the analogies are a bit too specific.

This is about a company (AMD) trying to compete in an industry that has increasing returns to talent.

Big dog, small dog, who cares. The point is that new talent is attracted to companies with more talent because they have higher returns for every new piece of talent that walks through the door. Therefore they can pay them higher both tangibly and intangibly.

AMD simply needs to increase their return on talent and they would be producing innovations that Intel could only hope to achieve through commitment and loyalty.

 

[oldpablo]

Obviously not, since they haven't. All we've heard so far from them is bitching and whining about how wronged they were.

I'm not saying Intel wasn't unfair, but I'm with several other people in this thread: AMD needs to shut up with the PR whining and get back to this "innovation" they seem to have forgotten about the past few years.

I think most of the analogies are a bit too specific.

This is about a company (AMD) trying to compete in an industry that has increasing returns to talent.

Big dog, small dog, who cares. The point is that new talent is attracted to companies with more talent because they have higher returns for every new piece of talent that walks through the door. Therefore they can pay them higher both tangibly and intangibly.

AMD simply needs to increase their return on talent and they would be producing innovations that Intel could only hope to achieve through commitment and loyalty.

You are both grossly over simplifying. They have every right to bitch and whine, if you were said bike rider trying to race with slashed tires, would you be all stiff upper lip about it? Hell no. "It's okay dude go ahead and cheat I'll just keep trying my best under unfair circumstances *salute*." Innovation takes MONEY and TALENT and RESOURCES, all of which AMD was forced to be starved of to an extent by having their sales restricted thereby screwing them out of the money they would have, translate that money into more talent/resources, etc. Oh but it makes much more sense to say "hey they just forgot about innovating, AMD woke up one day and said hey let's just take everyting we have and make inferior products it'll be great." Who's to say AMD couldn't have grown dramatically in those YEARS they were ahead of Intel? To think otherwise is ridiculous given their track record and what they've accomplished despite Intel's cheating. Buying ATI put them in an excellent position to leverage things that Intel can't do not having a real graphics division, but that potential has also been severely restricted by cash flow and resources. These are not rationalizations, this is factually what happened. AMD is a great company that has proven their worth many times over, they don't deserve this. We don't deserve this either.

 

[MavericK]

You are both grossly over simplifying. They have every right to bitch and whine, if you were said bike rider trying to race with slashed tires, would you be all stiff upper lip about it? Hell no. "It's okay dude go ahead and cheat I'll just keep trying my best under unfair circumstances *salute*."

Either they should have done that, or sued Intel back when it was happening. Whining about it now years after the fact seems too little, too late to me.

Also, let's not forget this isn't some random bike rider, this is a multinational corporation. It's in extremely poor taste to make a comparison such as this if you're the VP of said corporation.

Finally, buying ATi was one of the worse things they could have done if they were really hurting for R&D money. Hell, Intel is working on a graphics chip now and they didn't have to buy out anyone.

No one ever said AMD deserved it. But they don't have to whine and use it as a scapegoat for all their woes. They could at least maintain some dignity and respect.

 

[Kristofff]

I still hear more crying than anything else.... WHHHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

That analogy makes no sense for this situation. Who exactly is the "person" who takes away the food represented by in the real situation? There was no external source "stealing" money from AMD.

A more accurate analogy would be that the larger dog started hunting almost all of the animals itself and there were hardly any left for the younger dog. Honestly, that's survival of the fittest. However, again, even this corrected analogy doesn't really make the most sense, given the reality.

It was a perfect analogy, you are just too stubborn or lack the mental capacity to comprehend it. The "man" in the analogy is the equivalent of intels ability to control the market. Either open up your mind and step your intelligence and comprehension game up, or get out of this thread.

Intel just skipped a couple of generations in terms of technology. Maybe it would be better for all if we passed strict rules about none competition and advancement of technology. After all, we only need computers that are so and so fast. Wait, we have the EU for that (dumb asses).

You are too ignorant to know what you are trying to discuss, obviously.

Obviously not, since they haven't. All we've heard so far from them is bitching and whining about how wronged they were.

I'm not saying Intel wasn't unfair, but I'm with several other people in this thread: AMD needs to shut up with the PR whining and get back to this "innovation" they seem to have forgotten about the past few years.

You can only operate at a disadvantage for so long and still stay competitive. CHECK THE PREVIOUS ANALOGY YOU SAID WAS NO GOOD, BECAUSE IT WAS PERFECT. The dog eventually loses weight and can't compete anymore.

Get out of the thread. You've proven yourself incapable of the relatively low intellect level this matter necessitates.

I think most of the analogies are a bit too specific.

This is about a company (AMD) trying to compete in an industry that has increasing returns to talent.

Big dog, small dog, who cares. The point is that new talent is attracted to companies with more talent because they have higher returns for every new piece of talent that walks through the door. Therefore they can pay them higher both tangibly and intangibly.

AMD simply needs to increase their return on talent and they would be producing innovations that Intel could only hope to achieve through commitment and loyalty.

No. If you can't pay for enough for the new talent THEN YOU DONT GET THE BEST TALENT. Talent join for money, first and foremost, not to associate with other talent.

 

[oldpablo]

Either they should have done that, or sued Intel back when it was happening. Whining about it now years after the fact seems too little, too late to me.

Also, let's not forget this isn't some random bike rider, this is a multinational corporation. It's in extremely poor taste to make a comparison such as this if you're the VP of said corporation.

Finally, buying ATi was one of the worse things they could have done if they were really hurting for R&D money. Hell, Intel is working on a graphics chip now and they didn't have to buy out anyone.

No one ever said AMD deserved it. But they don't have to whine and use it as a scapegoat for all their woes. They could at least maintain some dignity and respect.

So your responses basically tell me you really don't know what's going on. When do you think they started suing for this? This kind of thing is very serious in the industry (see SCO) and you don't just do it if you barely have a case or just because you want to. It takes time to do this, it also takes a lot of money, and you have to weigh the consequences. Just because they didn't start suing till Jun '05 (yes that far back) doesn't mean it wasn't happening earlier then that. Maybe for the first couple of years they did "suck it up" and "not whine" as you so happily saying. Did I just blow your mind?!?!? I recommend you spend some time here, it looks like they setup this handy website to help along all the ignoramuses. http://breakfree.amd.com

 

[Usquabach]

No. If you can't pay for enough for the new talent THEN YOU DONT GET THE BEST TALENT. Talent join for money, first and foremost, not to associate with other talent.

You must have skimmed my post and lost the point. The point is that AMD can't afford to pay for the best talent because they don't get as much profit for every unit of talent they hire.

The simple explanation is this: the best talent goes to the highest paying companies. They pay the highest because they can leverage that talent better (ergo make more money from it) than other, less talented companies in a market with increasing returns to talent.

 

[RangerXML]

You are too ignorant to know what you are trying to discuss, obviously.

OK, could you fill me in on the history of how we got from the Pentium IV to Core Duo to Core 2 Duo. Quite interesting, it was a logical progression until Core 2 Duo that left AMD in the dust. My statement makes perfect sense if you're not ignorant of the events that took place before this whole attempted shut out of AMD.

 

[MavericK]

I recommend you spend some time here, it looks like they setup this handy website to help along all the ignoramuses. http://breakfree.amd.com

Huh. A website about the legal proceedings from one of the involved parties. Yeah, that's going to be totally unbiased.

I have no problem with AMD other than their recent tasteless comments about the situation, and have said so numerous times, but it's becoming pretty clear to me that you're nothing more than an AMD fanboy, so I'm going to just move along.

Oh, and I've owned and used AMD processors since the 100 MHz Pentium, and only recently got the Core i7 because it was a much better offering than AMD's top models. Pretty hard to call me an Intel fanboy when 95% of my PC-using life has been AMD-based.

 

[oldpablo]

Huh. A website about the legal proceedings from one of the involved parties. Yeah, that's going to be totally unbiased.

I have no problem with AMD other than their recent tasteless comments about the situation, and have said so numerous times, but it's becoming pretty clear to me that you're nothing more than an AMD fanboy, so I'm going to just move along.

Oh, and I've owned and used AMD processors since the 100 MHz Pentium, and only recently got the Core i7 because it was a much better offering than AMD's top models. Pretty hard to call me an Intel fanboy when 95% of my PC-using life has been AMD-based.

So don't read their website then, go read up on it from other websites. But PLEASE get informed. I don't see how AMD stating facts can be considered tasteless and feel it's ironic that you don't see Intel's actions as tasteless. What about fanboys now?

 

[Kristofff]

You must have skimmed my post and lost the point. The point is that AMD can't afford to pay for the best talent because they don't get as much profit for every unit of talent they hire.

The simple explanation is this: the best talent goes to the highest paying companies. They pay the highest because they can leverage that talent better (ergo make more money from it) than other, less talented companies in a market with increasing returns to talent.

Your idea that talent flocks to talent is wrong. They flock to the most popular and prestigious company paying the best wages. The fact that there may be talent there too is just a coincidence that is besides the point.

This is solely about money and who can pay for the best talent to compete. With AMD having its market accessabilty squeezed, it can't compete forever.

OK, could you fill me in on the history of how we got from the Pentium IV to Core Duo to Core 2 Duo. Quite interesting, it was a logical progression until Core 2 Duo that left AMD in the dust. My statement makes perfect sense if you're not ignorant of the events that took place before this whole attempted shut out of AMD.

Look, I'm not going to explain it to you. You can research it if you want. Just know that when AMD was kicking the shit out of Intels ass, Intel was the one still raking in profits because they controlled the market and kept AMD from taking their rightful share. They HINDERED COMPETITION that left AMD in the position it is today. AMD can't last forever with that kind of market manipulation working against them.

In other words, you are ignorant and need to look closer at the timeline and what actually happened.

Huh. A website about the legal proceedings from one of the involved parties. Yeah, that's going to be totally unbiased.

I have no problem with AMD other than their recent tasteless comments about the situation, and have said so numerous times, but it's becoming pretty clear to me that you're nothing more than an AMD fanboy, so I'm going to just move along.

Oh, and I've owned and used AMD processors since the 100 MHz Pentium, and only recently got the Core i7 because it was a much better offering than AMD's top models. Pretty hard to call me an Intel fanboy when 95% of my PC-using life has been AMD-based.

You may not be a fan boy but that doesn't mean you aren't still a fool whining about bootstraps and tough love.

You just brushed off information that you are ignorant about. This means you are both stubborn and ignorant. You'll do well in life. Better hope you get to management so you can cover your incompetence by blaming others.

 

[MavericK]

So don't read their website then, go read up on it from other websites. But PLEASE get informed. I don't see how AMD stating facts can be considered tasteless and feel it's ironic that you don't see Intel's actions as tasteless. What about fanboys now?

You honestly feel that this situation is well-analogized by the Tanya/Nancy tragedy? Wow. Never mind, it's all become clear to me. Forget I said anything.

You just brushed off information that you are ignorant about. This means you are both stubborn and ignorant. You'll do well in life. Better hope you get to management so you can cover your incompetence by blaming others.

My life is great, thank you very much. I consider myself successful in every aspect of my life.

 

[RangerXML]

Look, I'm not going to explain it to you. You can research it if you want. Just know that when AMD was kicking the shit out of Intels ass, Intel was the one still raking in profits because they controlled the market and kept AMD from taking their rightful share. They HINDERED COMPETITION that left AMD in the position it is today. AMD can't last forever with that kind of market manipulation working against them.

In other words, you are ignorant and need to look closer at the timeline and what actually happened.

This statement proofs how completely ignorant you are, you basically just said that Intel never overtook AMD, but rather slowly and financially drove them to the point they are today. Intel took a project that was incomplete to market to replace its failing Core Duo line that was a generation ahead of anything either were doing, best decision Intel could of ever made. After that it was AMD's turn to play catch up, which they still haven't managed to do. I wish them the best of luck, but what they are doing now is just being whiny little bitches.

 

[Usquabach]

Your idea that talent flocks to talent is wrong. They flock to the most popular and prestigious company paying the best wages. The fact that there may be talent there too is just a coincidence that is besides the point. This is solely about money and who can pay for the best talent to compete. With AMD having its market accessabilty squeezed, it can't compete forever.

I think we are arguing the exact same thing. Talent goes to the companies that pay the highest (or are the most prestigious, etc.). In technical terms it is called "agglomeration" although it is a loosely used term in this case. Agglomeration may even explain why income inequality is increasing in the world - but that's a massively complicated model to argue.

But I am only trying to say that Intel pays the best because they make more money off each of their talented workers.

AMD might get someone with an IQ of 200, but if AMD only makes $10,000 profit off them and Intel makes $20,000 profit off the same guy, guess who is going to pay the higher wage...

I respect what your saying though because I think we are on the same side (despite my inability to get my point across )

 

[Kristofff]

This statement proofs how completely ignorant you are, you basically just said that Intel never overtook AMD, but rather slowly and financially drove them to the point they are today. Intel took a project that was incomplete to market to replace its failing Core Duo line that was a generation ahead of anything either were doing, best decision Intel could of ever made. After that it was AMD's turn to play catch up, which they still haven't managed to do. I wish them the best of luck, but what they are doing now is just being whiny little bitches.

What the hell is wrong with you? I NEVER said that, you merely ignorantly assumed it to prove your false point.

AMD and Intel did compete and out engineer each other, but with Intel having the market advantage, they put AMD at a disadvantage which eventually has put them behind them technologically.

THE WHOLE TIME AMD's PROCESSORS WERE KICKING INTEL's PROCESSORS ASSES, INTEL WAS CONTROLLING THE MARKET SHARE THROUGH MANIPULATION AND STILL TURNING OVER HUGE PROFITS AT AMD's EXPENSE.

Does this make sense to you? Because if it doesn't, GET OUT OF THE THREAD.

I think we are arguing the exact same thing. Talent goes to the companies that pay the highest (or are the most prestigious, etc.). In technical terms it is called "agglomeration" although it is a loosely used term in this case. Agglomeration may even explain why income inequality is increasing in the world - but that's a massively complicated model to argue.

But I am only trying to say that Intel pays the best because they make more money off each of their talented workers.

AMD might get someone with an IQ of 200, but if AMD only makes $10,000 profit off them and Intel makes $20,000 profit off the same guy, guess who is going to pay the higher wage...

I respect what your saying though because I think we are on the same side (despite my inability to get my point across )

We're both saying AMD is at a disadvantage through no fault of their own

My life is great, thank you very much. I consider myself successful in every aspect of my life.

Ignorant AND arrogant. Nice!

 

[MavericK]

GET OUT OF THE THREAD.

You're not a moderator. Stop saying this, it just makes you sound even more irritating.

Ignorant AND arrogant. Nice!

It's arrogant to be happy with your life, and feel successful? Jesus, you need to get a clue, and fast.

 

[RangerXML]

What the hell is wrong with you? I NEVER said that, you merely ignorantly assumed it to prove your false point.

AMD and Intel did compete and out engineer each other, but with Intel having the market advantage, they put AMD at a disadvantage which eventually has put them behind them technologically.

THE WHOLE TIME AMD's PROCESSORS WERE KICKING INTEL's PROCESSORS ASSES, INTEL WAS CONTROLLING THE MARKET SHARE THROUGH MANIPULATION AND STILL TURNING OVER HUGE PROFITS AT AMD's EXPENSE.

Does this make sense to you? Because if it doesn't, GET OUT OF THE THREAD.

So again you say that Intel drove AMD into the ground to get the technological advantage, which is not correct. Is it or is it not what you are saying?

AMD is the underdog, don't get me wrong and Intel is the big bad empire.

 

[Kristofff]

You're not a moderator. Stop saying this, it just makes you sound even more irritating.



It's arrogant to be happy with your life, and feel successful? Jesus, you need to get a clue, and fast.

Irritating or not, my points are still valid, while yours are ignorant nonsense.

Stop defending your personal character flaws and accept you are wrong. I don't care about your feelings, so stop trying to be defensive and stubborn. Then, when you get out of defensive mode, go educate yourself about the topic of this thread before you spout any more ignorant bullshit you pull out of your ass.

So again you say that Intel drove AMD into the ground to get the technological advantage, which is not correct. Is it or is it not what you are saying?

AMD is the underdog, don't get me wrong and Intel is the big bad empire.

No, man, what is wrong with you?

AMD and Intel, if the market was even, would go tit for tat. AMD can only compete so long before they plateau compared to Intel.

Do you understand that? I never said the Core2 Duo processers weren't superior. However, had AMD gotten its fair share from their superior processors, things MAY have been different. But, what is for sure is that Intel gamed the system through manipulation.

Can you comprehend this, yes or no? Just nod your head if you feel you can't manage to speak intelligible words.

Also, smilies aren't cute. I despise your excessinve use of them if you are a grown man.

 

[RangerXML]

No, man, what is wrong with you?

AMD and Intel, if the market was even, would go tit for tat. AMD can only compete so long before they plateau compared to Intel.

Do you understand that? I never said the Core2 Duo processers weren't superior. However, had AMD gotten its fair share from their superior processors, things MAY have been different. But, what is for sure is that Intel gamed the system through manipulation.

Can you comprehend this, yes or no? Just nod your head if you feel you can't manage to speak intelligible words.

Also, smilies aren't cute. I despise your excessinve use of them if you are a grown man.

I just think Intel had superior advertising, "Intel inside" is just so damn catchy. It's just called good marketing. It's no wonder when AMD had a superior product ("processor") they couldn't get footing, they just couldn't sell themselves (plus that ugly shade of green, come on!). Back in the day all I bought was AMD. EU are socialist pricks!

Plus I only use one smiley in this thread, not what I would call "excessive"Oops, that's two, that is "excessive"!

 

[MavericK]

go educate yourself about the topic of this thread before you spout any more ignorant bullshit you pull out of your ass.

Pot, kettle, black.

I'm not going to bother being your troll-bait anymore. Ignored.

 

[dmagro]

I find it absolutely astonishing that so many people in this thread seem to think that STARVING a company of profits (money) via illegal means wouldn't severely hamper their R&D.

Of course AMD wasn't able to keep ahead of Intel without money. I don't know about you, but I would probably work for the company that offered me more money.

 

[Kristofff]

Pot, kettle, black.

I'm not going to bother being your troll-bait anymore. Ignored.

So, you admit you are being an ignorant charlatan, arguing about things you don't understand?

I just think Intel had superior advertising, "Intel inside" is just so damn catchy. It's just called good marketing. It's no wonder when AMD had a superior product ("processor") they couldn't get footing, they just couldn't sell themselves (plus that ugly shade of green, come on!). Back in the day all I bought was AMD. EU are socialist pricks!

Plus I only use one smiley in this thread, not what I would call "excessive"Oops, that's two, that is "excessive"!

Marketing on TV doesn't net you monpoly deals with OEMs like Dell, HP, etc. Intel controlled the market and kept AMD from being sold in those channels, which are the MAIN channels computers are purchased in, and where you gain most of your profits and marketshare.

Don't you remember everyone's amazement when Dell finally said they were going to offer AMD? People were literally shocked that AMD was finally able to get Dell to offer their processors. Why couldn't they before? Intel's dirty tactics to shut them out with an unfair market.

 

[RangerXML]

I was being sarcastic. And now I shall stop feeding the troll, nice troll *pats troll on head*.

 

[Kristofff]

I was being sarcastic. And now I shall stop feeding the troll, nice troll *pats troll on head*.

We all have our own unique way of admitting we were wrong without actually saying it, I suppose.

 

[a2vr6]

your kidding right? So because intel has money, they SHOULDNT by more plants to make better chips, they should sit back and stay on the same level as AMD? WTF, sorry but get a clue, it is not Intels fault AMD cant afford more plants and more R&D money to make better chips, maybe AMD shouldnt of bought ATI and instead used that money to make a better CPU vs going massivly into debt.

Intel can what it wants as long as it is not underhanded and scummy. Because of them giving the oem's no choice but to ONLY use there products (or lose licensing/make life hard) they did not have a choice. So Intel more than deserves this. What you and many Intel nuthuggers don't see is in the end the CONSUMERS benefit, NOT Intel OR AMD. Think about it. Intel getting sued is great, this will make things better in the long run.

 

[a2vr6]

Here is a great post explaining things for the people that don't get it:

Anytime in the history of this rivalry, when AMD started to gain favor with enthusiasts and the review community, Intel pressed the OEM’s and Retailers hard to repress the innovation they saw. So, if AMD does come out with the Nehalem killer in the next few months, and they are not positioned in a fair and just marketplace do you think it will win AMD a fair share of the business just because they produced a more compelling product?

Getting the Retailers and OEM’s to promote your brand is the other half of the battle. Intel was not playing fair in that regard, countless accusations and testimony have displayed this reality, bottom line is this, AMD could make the greatest chip the world has ever known, and as long as Intel has ten times the resources to bury that priority with the OEM’s and Retailers, it may never find its way into enough systems to be a real threat to big blue.

Like AMD calling Intel out or not, know one thing, the technology market is far better off for AMD sticking it out all these years. They have driven their competitor to innovate and to offer the best pricing we have ever enjoyed on high performing chips.

In the consumer market alone, the Slot A Athlon’s were far superior to the Pentium III - The Athlon 64 made the Pentium 4 look like a joke, The Athlon X2 was a far superior chip to the P4 HT, and Pentium D, and frankly, none of this is debatable, its just fact. Core 2 over the last few years has finally been Intels pull ahead point in terms of raw chip performance, and if you compare them dollar for dollar, AMD still wins in a hard value comparison.

So lets agree, you would have rather had an Athlon 64 to a Pentium 4 back then, right, lets be real, it was a far better platform, so if AMD had the lead on raw performance then, why didn’t they just magically gain a 50+% market share? You know why, the game is rigged. So you see, the point isn’t just about making an amazing chip, both AMD and Intel do this, and have switched performance leads a number of times. If you can’t get your product on the shelf because your competitor offers the retailer money to keep yours off the shelf, the greatest chip ever made will not matter, because its not in stock. And don’t give me a “that’s tough”, “its the way the world is” kind of reply, because I am not buying it.

If A-Rod did roids to hit extra long balls, does it mean that the whole league has to suck it up, and just get better, and if that means playing dirty too, so be it? I don’t think it should.

 

[Kristofff]

I love that ending anaolgy. Thanks.