Sorry, which is it, facts or rumours? Thanks for lifting the level of discussion here, as well, we all appreciate it.
I sincerely apologize, but I used the words "facts" and "details" interchangeably. If that really offended you, feel free to file a lawsuit against me based on causes of action such as emotional distress because of your butthurt syndrome. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.
But really. If you want to "bring the discussion to a new level," try something else besides nit-picking at my choice of words and taking my comments out of context.
These rumors have proven to be mostly reliable. Apple most likely was planning to dump Samsung for TSMC, but a change of circumstances required a change in decisions. But now that you mention it, though these are rumors, I really don't think there's any harm in taking these details as at least pretty credible as long as the sources are pretty reliable. The previous article in which it was stated Apple was moving solely to TSMC for A6 fabbing isn't necessarily inconsistent with this new piece of information, regardless whether it's factual or purely speculative.
FWIW, this piece of news just shows me cooler heads prevailed at both Samsung and Apple. We'll still see a lot of rhetoric and posturing taking place in the news--that's nothing new. It's simply business as usual.
So how's that iPhone 5 with 4.5" screen and NFC working for you?
I wasn't referring to every single rumor posted on the internet, hence the article adjective "These." You would've been more convincing if you'd rewritten my entire comment to support your own imagination. FYI, I was referring to industry news surround chip-fabbing. Apparently the virtues of common sense and reading comprehension are lost on the ignorant.
Nice try, but you really should try coming up with an intelligible rebuttal to my previous points instead of conceding to them and twisting my words around childishly.
What was that supposed to be? Some sort of narcissistic I'm gonna get him? Finally?
Ummm, nope. Didn't work out the way you thought.
And homey, you don't seem to know how to read to apply context very well. The literal "in your own words" only works when the words quoted are factually incorrect. Seeing as how that isn't true and you couldn't even figure out that first part for yourself it doesn't leave a very good impression of your posting ability. Kinda pathetic and consistently self delusional.
You utterly missed your own attempted point so badly that you merely proved I don't fall for random BS on the boards and that I call it out (especially from the -z crew). And that's news to anyone in these parts?
Wow. Are you impressed with yourself? Here, have a </cookie>, only Fails that spectacular deserve one!
And oh, I suggest you look sock-puppet up on the internet. I don't think it means what you think it does!
I wasn't referring to every single rumor posted on the internet, hence the article adjective "These." You would've been more convincing if you'd rewritten my entire comment to support your own imagination. FYI, I was referring to industry news surround chip-fabbing. Apparently the virtues of common sense and reading comprehension are lost on the ignorant.
Nice try, but you really should try coming up with an intelligible rebuttal to my previous points instead of conceding to them and twisting my words around childishly.
Its a matter of reading comprehension. When you say "These rumors have proven to be mostly reliable.", some people see "Every one of these rumors have proven to be 100% reliable."
It may be pathological, it may be psychological, it might be intentional.
Surely Intel or Global Foundries can replace Samsung, Samsung isn't the only company that can fabricate SoCs.
Apparently those choices were not available to Apple. The way things are going lately, my guess is that Apple offered them some kind of a "deal", which they considered, and then tried to keep a straight face as they said "No Thanks".
Apple then went, hat in hand, back to Samsung, and begged them.
It is neither his argument nor , if it were his argument, would it be a a tautology.
HTH.
Actually, it is his argument. He first said that the rumors were true. I pointed out that the majority of rumors here turned out to be nonsense. He said, effectively, "I was only talking about the rumors which turned out to be true".
Now, I realize that there are a lot of big words there that will be difficult for you, but a tautology is, in sort, something that turns out to be inherently true because the proposition is phrased in such a way that it MUST be true. Which is what he did.
Here, have a kiss . There feel better now? Now that you notice me?
At least I'm not the crazy stalker that waded through 7 years of posts over some wild personal hissy fit. An oh yeah, you've noticed me before, I'm just not going off the deep end spending hours of my day combing our old posts.
The -z sock-puppet comment must have hit awful close to home to get you that riled up and defensive. No apologies there.
Comments
Sorry, which is it, facts or rumours? Thanks for lifting the level of discussion here, as well, we all appreciate it.
I sincerely apologize, but I used the words "facts" and "details" interchangeably. If that really offended you, feel free to file a lawsuit against me based on causes of action such as emotional distress because of your butthurt syndrome. I'm sure it'll make you feel better.
But really. If you want to "bring the discussion to a new level," try something else besides nit-picking at my choice of words and taking my comments out of context.
These rumors have proven to be mostly reliable. Apple most likely was planning to dump Samsung for TSMC, but a change of circumstances required a change in decisions. But now that you mention it, though these are rumors, I really don't think there's any harm in taking these details as at least pretty credible as long as the sources are pretty reliable. The previous article in which it was stated Apple was moving solely to TSMC for A6 fabbing isn't necessarily inconsistent with this new piece of information, regardless whether it's factual or purely speculative.
FWIW, this piece of news just shows me cooler heads prevailed at both Samsung and Apple. We'll still see a lot of rhetoric and posturing taking place in the news--that's nothing new. It's simply business as usual.
These rumors have proven to be mostly reliable.
ROTFLMAO.
So how's that iPhone 5 with 4.5" screen and NFC working for you?
ROTFLMAO.
So how's that iPhone 5 with 4.5" screen and NFC working for you?
I wasn't referring to every single rumor posted on the internet, hence the article adjective "These." You would've been more convincing if you'd rewritten my entire comment to support your own imagination. FYI, I was referring to industry news surround chip-fabbing. Apparently the virtues of common sense and reading comprehension are lost on the ignorant.
Nice try, but you really should try coming up with an intelligible rebuttal to my previous points instead of conceding to them and twisting my words around childishly.
Not sure what's creepier; the fact that you wasted your time to stalk through months of his posts to pull these quotes out or the fact that?
Know what? Never mind.
Exactly. Creepy. Must... win... argument... on web forum
As much as i hate Samsung, they do make brilliant tech.
OK. [i LOVE doing this!!!] In your own words homey...
What was that supposed to be? Some sort of narcissistic I'm gonna get him? Finally?
Ummm, nope. Didn't work out the way you thought.
And homey, you don't seem to know how to read to apply context very well. The literal "in your own words" only works when the words quoted are factually incorrect. Seeing as how that isn't true and you couldn't even figure out that first part for yourself it doesn't leave a very good impression of your posting ability. Kinda pathetic and consistently self delusional.
You utterly missed your own attempted point so badly that you merely proved I don't fall for random BS on the boards and that I call it out (especially from the -z crew). And that's news to anyone in these parts?
Wow. Are you impressed with yourself? Here, have a </cookie>, only Fails that spectacular deserve one!
And oh, I suggest you look sock-puppet up on the internet. I don't think it means what you think it does!
I wasn't referring to every single rumor posted on the internet, hence the article adjective "These."
I see. So your argument is that only those rumors which turn out to be true are to be believed?
Sounds like a tautology to me.
I wasn't referring to every single rumor posted on the internet, hence the article adjective "These." You would've been more convincing if you'd rewritten my entire comment to support your own imagination. FYI, I was referring to industry news surround chip-fabbing. Apparently the virtues of common sense and reading comprehension are lost on the ignorant.
Nice try, but you really should try coming up with an intelligible rebuttal to my previous points instead of conceding to them and twisting my words around childishly.
Its a matter of reading comprehension. When you say "These rumors have proven to be mostly reliable.", some people see "Every one of these rumors have proven to be 100% reliable."
It may be pathological, it may be psychological, it might be intentional.
Surely Intel or Global Foundries can replace Samsung, Samsung isn't the only company that can fabricate SoCs.
Apparently those choices were not available to Apple. The way things are going lately, my guess is that Apple offered them some kind of a "deal", which they considered, and then tried to keep a straight face as they said "No Thanks".
Apple then went, hat in hand, back to Samsung, and begged them.
I see. So your argument is that only those rumors which turn out to be true are to be believed?
Sounds like a tautology to me.
It is neither his argument nor , if it were his argument, would it be a a tautology.
HTH.
Apple then went, hat in hand, back to Samsung, and begged them.
It is neither his argument nor , if it were his argument, would it be a a tautology.
HTH.
Actually, it is his argument. He first said that the rumors were true. I pointed out that the majority of rumors here turned out to be nonsense. He said, effectively, "I was only talking about the rumors which turned out to be true".
And, yes, that is a tautology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_(logic)
Now, I realize that there are a lot of big words there that will be difficult for you, but a tautology is, in sort, something that turns out to be inherently true because the proposition is phrased in such a way that it MUST be true. Which is what he did.
"I hadn't previously noticed you at all
Here, have a kiss
At least I'm not the crazy stalker that waded through 7 years of posts over some wild personal hissy fit. An oh yeah, you've noticed me before, I'm just not going off the deep end spending hours of my day combing our old posts.
The -z sock-puppet comment must have hit awful close to home to get you that riled up and defensive. No apologies there.