PALO ALTO, Calif. (CNN/Money) - Writing about Intel, as I've done a fair amount this year, is certain to get a big response.

Day after day Intel is at or near the top of the list of most actively traded Nasdaq stocks.

Given that most of you seem to be long Intel most of you hate my Intel commentary, like the piece here last week ("How do you value zero growth?").

Take Pat G., for example: "Your article on Intel was shallow, thoughtless, and boring. Up 40 percent? Sure if you take a snapshot of such a short period of time, numbers can say anything. What multiple for zero growth? Sure, they are not the growth company they once were, but they have a great balance sheet and a solid profitable business. Most importantly, the business they created is now maturing and has become cyclical."

I've got no beef with stating what a great company Intel is. And by the way, I hold no position, long or short, in Intel shares, although my index funds definitely -- and lamentably -- own plenty of them.

The fact is, it's all relative. And that's what I was trying to show in comparing Intel to some of its peers. The corner hot dog stand may have the greatest hot dogs ever, be clean, and have customers lining up out the door. But it's not worth $1 billion.

Also writing on Intel, Robert S. relayed a stock-picking strategy I actually find intriguing. "Being someone that purchased Intel for the first time at $28 thinking I was getting a steal, I am not too fond of the company myself," he writes. "However, by purchasing much greater quantities of the stock at $14 and then dumping it last week at $22 I have at least compensated for my poor initial decision

"Everyone panicked and Intel dropped to the low teens, I snatched it up and sold it in the low 20s. When the H & R Block case was announced, everyone panicked and I snatched it up. Same thing with Tenet Health Care. So please, do nothing to discourage the over-reactions of investors. They are going to bring me a positive year after all."

For most of the bubble years stocks went only up, and so it made sense never to sell them. Since mid-2000, it seems, they've only gone down. That period may at last be over. And it may be a good time not so much to buy just anything on the dips, but certainly the things you've wanted buy. That said, trying to time the market is a hard thing to pull off.

And that leads to George M., who writes with a good criticism. "You often point out irrational upsides in the market, but never point out irrational downsides," says George. "Both are influenced by sentiment. Where were you when tech stocks were irrationally losing 80 to 90 percent? The infamous bubble doesn't account for all of it. The market drops 30 percent in weeks and you accept it. It improves 30 percent in a month and it is unacceptable, and there is no rational reason for it and you and your fellow bears clamor for sell-offs. Your logic is flawed if it doesn't work both ways."

Recently by Adam Lashinsky Brocade: 'Don't buy our stock' That enough bad news for you? Intel: How do you value zero growth?

I'd argue that there was nothing irrational at all about sell-offs of 80 to 90 percent in stocks of companies that didn't make money or were committing fraud or who saw their businesses dry up. But things certainly can get too cheap. And so, point well taken.

Finally, the subject of dividends, which I addressed in relation to a rejection of a motion by a Cisco shareholder that the company consider issuing one. "I'll take dividends any day, taxed or not, if the buybacks only result in the bought back shares just being issued again to already overpaid execs," says Richard B. "No one ever seems to mention this."

I'll mention it right now Richard. Too often buybacks, which companies present as a more tax-efficient way of rewarding shareholders, are meant primarily to offset dilution from executives exercising their stock options. A buyback that benefits the shareholders is one that's in excess of the anti-dilution purchases. You can tell that the investing public wants dividends again. And the Bush administration seems set on simplifying the tax code to give them what they want.

Adam Lashinsky is a senior writer for Fortune magazine. Send e-mail to Adam at lashinskysbottomline@yahoo.com.

Sign up to receive The Bottom Line by e-mail.