🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ted.oliver-1801960811280001@129.219.116.52>,
ted.oliver@asu.edu (Ted Oliver) wrote:

>In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960117223321.19626A-100000@howard>, Patrick
>O'Neil <patrick@howard.genetics.utah.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Jim Derr wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>> I remember a few years back when Compaq was having troubles.  They were 
>>> laying people off and restructuring.  No one who bought Compaq stock at 
>>> the time regrets it now.
>>> 
>>> I have seen many Apple-is-dying arguments come and go.  Despite all the 
>>> arguments, Apple just kept getting bigger.  
>>[...]
>>
>>And now Apple is getting smaller.  I'm sure the employees who get dumped 
>>will be understanding and realize that Apple is still a great 
>>company...and the dorks at the top will get a pay increase.
>>
>>On a related tack, I find it amusing that since Intel has recently seen 
>>some similar financial problems, Apple-philes in particular are 
>>predicting Intel's demise.  So, Apple has financial problems and has to 
>>downsize and drop out of certain markets and it is perfectly OK, no prob 
>>(those layed off will disagree) but the same for Intel?  NO WAY!  Their 
>>DYING!  See? They're laying people off, the bastards.
>>
>>Geesh.
>
>I see far more people from the wintel side of the tracks predicting
>apple's demise than I have seen apple-philes predicting Intel's demise. 
>Of course, there *are* far more people on the wintel side of the tracks
>:-).  But to predict either company's demise based on a single quarter of
>less-than-expected profitability seems a little premature.

Okay - when I wrote this I hadn't seen Chip Rondot's gazillion posts in
this and comp.sys.intel. Why is it so many advocacy-types go so far over
the line to mangle any credibility they might have?

>>poneil@genetics.utah.edu
>
>-- 
>ted.oliver@asu.edu

-- 
ted.oliver@asu.edu