Bummer... Now I Have To Remove The Sticky!

Just when AMD admits to the misleading benchmarks, Scientia coincidentally owns up to his mistakes. He reckons the list isn’t long enough and he humbly insists that there’s more if only we start looking further back. But the notorious ‘list” was less about the number of mistakes but more about the attitude of infallibility which incidentally annoyed the hell out of his readers.

Scientia’s controversial claims and statements cleverly crafted into an argument are the things that bring readers into his blog. Often when you thread the fine line of controversy and deep opinion, you get a lot of things wrong. But does it really matter? Mike McGee believes that one should never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Awful as it sounds, it is a good maxim to live by if you wish to write publicly. Compared to reading another person’s varying opinion, plain truth can be very dull. In a world where everyone is vying for attention, I’d rather be wrong and make people think than give people the facts and put them to sleep. We have the News to do that for us. But again, there is a world of a difference between getting things wrong and insisting that you never get things wrong. The recent incident in his blog was about the latter.

But unexpectedly, Scientia owns up to all his mistakes. Personally, I find it disappointing simply because my arsenal of “I told you so’s” have now been completely wiped clean quickly taking away my right to gloat! I personally believe that there is no value nor esteem in bringing up past mistakes in an argument when your opponent has admitted to them. This most certainly takes away the fun of arguing with him now. But to his credit, it takes a lot of humility and courage to be able to do what he just did. We all have to give him that.

As for his personal tragedy, I believe I can speak for everyone on both sides when I say that the kind of heated arguments that we throw at each other should be kept within the arena of discussion and separate from our personal lives. On a personal level, I can only wish everyone, above all Scientia, well. I can understand how terrible it must have been to be in such a difficult situation. One can easily imagine how futile it must have felt, even if it provided a brief respite from the sorrow, to distract oneself through online forums. I can only hope that such tragic circumstance never happen to anyone else, especially everyone here who participate in the discussions.


Anonymous said...

You are too much of a good man. That said, continue to expect Scientia shill and spin 'til AMD's bankruptcy and beyond lol.

Anonymous said...

In fact, if they keep pulling the TDP down they may be able to bump the clock to 3.2Ghz on 65nm by Q1 08 which may be the earliest AMD gets a K10 near 3.0Ghz.

I want some of that good stuff.

13ringinheat said...

Classy move roborat. It was very brave of scientia to own up to his mistake and you cant take that away from the guy no matter how he spins things......

Anonymous said...

Perhaps everyone can move on now - as you stated it wasn't about the fact that he was making errors (everyone does), it was about the fact that he said prove it and was arrogantly claiming this not to be the case... Now that some examples were pointed out (which by the way did not go back 6 years of AMDzone history but more like the 1 year on his blog), he has acknowledged it and I think folks can now move on...

Perhaps the fact that anonymous (or should I say gutter rat?) posters pointed some of these out, the argument of discounting / discrediting anonymous posts purely on the basis that they are anonymous might not be correct either... I have no issues with him not allowing anonymous posts on his sites, but the fact that there are other sites that do allow anonymous posters doesn't make them more likely to be factually wrong.

pointer said...

I'm one of the earliest posters in sci blog being name-labeling and banned and all i did was pointing out his mistakes ... well, i don't bother to check if my posts were removed or not ..

SPARKS said...

Now that both sides, Blue and Green, have come to the reality of AMD's catastrophic long term failure, the truth unfolds. Shall I be so bold as to say AMD suckered everyone? Why? Desperately holding on to what ever market they have left as they bleed cash on a daily basis is my answer. During the last 6 months of AMD strategic marketing FUD, I have found this site to be VERY objective.

With the Doc's obvious expertise and vast manufacturing knowledge, I have capitalized on the contents and opinions freely given. Further, in regards to anonymity, it seems VERY knowledgeable individuals who NEED to be anonymous have written in the past. Maybe they are industry insiders, maybe corporate moles from both sides, who knows? Better to leave the back door open to people who need it. Jesus, some of these guys sounded like they baked silicon wafers on a daily basis!

Conversely, well healed, well respected analysts and writers would have been better off if they kept anonymous. Either they had an agenda or just simply duped. In any case, they were so wrong or so taken in. And, we all know who they are, don’t we?

With the Doc as a moderator, I believe he could read a phony like a cheap novel. If not, someone else on this site would. They don’t give away PhD’s in this industry for soldering resistors on a circuit board, (Bill Gates qualifies as the exception).

In any case, this is a wonderful site. Running through its listed, previously dated, contents and comments bare testimony that the opinions and analysis has been spot on. I am, of course, in it for the money. Which, by the way, I’ve made. Spin misters beware; the truth never can be hidden, merely delayed. There ARE smart people watching. Many of them are on this site. Kudos, Doc. (I can’t believe that corporate SHILL banned you)


Roborat, Ph. D. said...

Sparks said: "Further, in regards to anonymity, it seems VERY knowledgeable individuals who NEED to be anonymous have written in the past. Maybe they are industry insiders, maybe corporate moles from both sides, who knows? Better to leave the back door open to people who need it. Jesus, some of these guys sounded like they baked silicon wafers on a daily basis!

I agree, some of them did make very valid and interesting comments especially about wafer manufacturing. Both Intel and AMD stress about confidentiality and proprietary secrets and asking people who work for either to come out, be known and speak freely isn't really a wise thing to do.

Scientia from AMDZone said...

Just when AMD admits to the misleading benchmarks, Scientia coincidentally owns up to his mistakes.

I wasn't aware that AMD did. I wrote my article right after I read yours and realized that you also linked to my posts on AMDZone and even other places from years back. If information and opinions can change in just a few months then it surely would in a few years. I'm sure I've been wrong plenty of times.

I'm curious though. Did you ever admit that you were wrong about the "AMD gets rid of its FABs in 2008 rumor"? There's another rumor floating around now that claims that AMD will start making processors at TSMC which is equally silly.

On the subject of anonymity. That is a red herring. Few people post with their actual name; almost everyone uses a pseudonym. My point concerns using the same pseudonym so that you can tell who said what. It isn't about knowing the real name or occupation of each poster. It is complete nonsense to suggest that everyone cannot use a unique pseudonym.

The second reason I detest anonymous posts is spoof posting. I've now seen this on three different blogs where people use someone else's name to do a fake post.

Ho ho gave me a list of posts where I apparently insulted people. I haven't had a chance to look up the context because the list did not include links. But it's possible that I was more aggressive in these posts than I realized and may have to make more apologies.

Pointer, the only person I have no intention of letting back on my blog is Red. When Red was posting I spent half my time trying to explain english to him. He was disruptive while adding very little. Your posts were better than that.

A good example of a gutter rat comment is the first one. It makes no significant point, is insulting, but is anonymous.

Anonymous said...

AMD did do "it", twice even!

So after dozens of your thinkings debunked, you can only ask Roborat to own up to something that hasn't been proven wrong? Wakawaka

Roborat, Ph. D. said...

Scientia said: "Did you ever admit that you were wrong about the "AMD gets rid of its FABs in 2008 rumor"?"

I never agreed to the timeline of this rumour. I do stand by the belief that if the current situation remains the same for AMD, it will never generate enough revenue to invest in the next process node. The math isn't too complex to predict this which is why AMD had to mention "asset-lite" in their last earnings call.

I thought the 100% fabless in 2008 is ridiculous considering the tools are already in-house. I'm looking further down the road 32nm maybe, who knows. The possibility is there.

SPARKS said...

Looking above, concerning Scientia’s comments regarding anonymity, reveals a few interesting perspectives. I think he totally missed my more objective point regarding knowledgeable individuals who NEED it.

Secondly, he complains about certain people spoofing his site. The question is why does his site attract such individuals? Conversely, as apposed to this site, I’ve seen no evidence of similar behavior. Most, if not all, of the posts on this site have been factual, coherent, objective and, above all, intelligent. Perhaps the Commutative Law of ‘garbage in garbage out’, equals ‘garbage out garbage in’, applies to his site.

Third, banning people? WTF. Does he consider the 'Doc' a disruptive influence on his site, for pointing out, objectively, fabrications and Power Point spin as gospel?

Personally, I am SPARKS. I value my web name as I value my personal name. I wouldn’t address Scientia’s site because he has been posting whatever he has been fed. In fact, as an investor, had I taken Based his blog as gospel, and invested in AMD based on HIS information six months ago, I would have lost a considerable amount of money. I am sure someone, somewhere has. It doesn’t take a Harvard Law major reviewing his previous posts to find such evidence. This is reckless.

Finally, He will never need to ban me. I wouldn't give him the opportunity; I simply don’t take him seriously. To bad many have.


Anonymous said...

Preach on brotha man! Down with the fudmen!