"I see where Cisco is back to where you bought it in 2011"
If you were a little smarter, you'd realize I am not the poster you are conflating me with. As a more important consequence, you might also end up making some money for your efforts if you were a little smarter.
And at this rate, perhaps INTC will be back at $24 by Wallis Weaver Day.
in his relentless, yet futile, attempt to talk INTC shares up in price?
I thought you guys all said ULTRABOOKS were going to make INTC stock go to the moon? How did that work out? About the same as GOOGLETV, eh?
Oh, and yesterday you boneheads were predicting a big rise in INTC because Dell is going private. In fact, Wallis was saying Robert Noyce was going to lead the buyout bid.
5) Because it is neither going up nor remaining unchanged.
6) Because Wallus & Mux are loooooooooooooooooooooooosers, and until they capitulate, there is no change for a sustained rise in INTC.
"No, this sample size was 9,766 "information workers.""
And they all worked at a little corporate campus in Redmond, Wa?
Anyone? Wallis? Mux? et Al Stanap? Hairbawl Dooooosh? Bueller?
"Must have been something they said."
Ya think? And just consider what happens tomorrow evening when MSFT reports.
If the market ever gives back any of the recent gains, is INTC going to buck the trend, or will we be searching the archives for that 45 rpm recording of Teen Angel once again?
There again is your problem. If and when it finally dawns on you that investing is about making money, you'll realize philosophy has nothing to do with it.
Maybe you're one of those people who prefers to be right (whatever that means) to making money. If that's the case, you're a grand success in the markets.
"So, the purpose of investing is to invest just like the dotcom people?"
Again you demonstrate total confusion. No, the purpose of investing is to make money. You are failing, and perhaps the reason for that is you think it's some sort of game to which the adage "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game" applies.
Another completely irrelevant observation (which is also, at least in part, incorrect, since I am in no way associated with the poster to whom you refer). But suppose, for the sake of argument, that I stipulate to being the person behind all of those names --- how does that change anything with respect to Intel as an investment? Are you really so inept as to think what's posted on this board affects the price of this stock?