Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I was thinking that we have a population of three-quarters of a million here in San Francisco, but the entire Bay Area has over five million. RCN serves some of the communities around the Bay, and is expanding. Also my sister lives in Framingham, Mass, twenty miles from Boston, and she has RCN. So the potential subscribers could be higher than we think if we just base it on the population of the cities themselves.
Then too, where people are living as couples, two people equal only one subscription.
Oh well. Just thought I'd throw this into the discussion for fun. Guess we'll know soon enough how many subscribers sign on.
Hi Skunks,
Right. Just thought her insights were interesting, particularly the idea that he might have set the whole thing up based on a sub-conscious need to come out. Not making any excuses for what he did, though.
Off topic.
Here's an interesting perspective from the wife of Michael Huffington who ran for office here in California, and later came out.
JIM MCGREEVEY: "I AM A GAY AMERICAN"
By Arianna Huffington
On Thursday, my day started at eight in the morning speaking together with New Jersey Senator John Corzine at a breakfast sponsored by ANGLE -- an organization consisting of the gay and lesbian leadership of Southern California and a magnet for political candidates running for office and raising funds. A couple of hours after I had left the breakfast, where I had been surrounded by successful gay men and women -- usinesspeople, politicians, accountants, even a priest -- my phone started ringing off the hook. New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey had just resigned and announced that he is gay, and it seemed as if the bookers from every television talk show in America -- from CNN’s “American Morning” to ABC’s “Nightline” -- had simultaneously had the exact same thought: “Let's get
Arianna Huffington." I was the proverbial two birds being killed with one stone -- a political commentator whose ex-husband had come out as gay.
As the day progressed, it became clear that this was a story unfolding on so many levels only a Shakespearean drama or a Verdi opera could do justice to it. There was the personal, the political, possibly the legal, and who knows what else to be revealed by the time we get to Act Five.
But we are still in Act One. And in Act One the spotlight is on the nexus of the personal and the political. McGreevey’s resignation announcement was undoubtedly the best political speech he’s ever made. It was powerful, compelling, emotional, and in sharp contrast to the pre-packaged speechifying we are so accustomed to hearing from politicians. At this profound crisis point in his political and personal lives he sounded
almost liberated. It's hard to resist playing armchair sychoanalyst and wondering: Did McGreevey unconsciously make certain choices -- like putting his lover on the government payroll in a high-profile position he was not qualified for -- in order to force upon himself Thursday's public announcement: "I am a gay American"?
We can't, of course, know what was going on in McGreevey's psyche, but hiring his lover, Golan Cipel -- an Israeli foreign national unable to obtain a federal security clearance to be the homeland security czar of New Jersey (and at a salary of $110,000 a year, no less) -- is the height of recklessness, and only makes sense as a taxpayer-funded cry for help. Clearly no good could come of such an appointment -- unless the governor
was unconsciously hoping that the appointment would eventually force his hand. Otherwise, he would not have flaunted his closeness to Cipel, leading him to self-destructive acts such as accompanying Cipel and a realtor on a walkthrough of a townhouse the newly arrived Israeli was about to rent a short distance from McGreevey's house. It's textbook human behavior: the harder you try to suppress the truth, the more inevitable it is that it will find a way to come out.
“Thinking that I was doing the right thing,” he said, “I forced what I thought was an acceptable reality onto myself, a reality which is layered and layered with all the, quote, 'good things,' and all the, quote, 'right things' of typical aolescent and adult behavior." It’s worth noting that McGreevey made this statement on the same day that the California Supreme Court annulled the state's 4000 same-sex marriages, raising the question: What if the world were a more welcoming place where gay people could have in their lives all the "good things" and the "right things" without having to pretend they're straight? After all, does anyone doubt that it's exponentially harder to attain elective office if you're openly gay? How else do you explain that we have no gay senators, only three gay members of Congress, and an openly gay governor of New Jersey only until Nov. 15?
But even if Jim McGreevey did not want to hold public office, if he just wanted a marriage and children -- natural urges, perhaps as powerful as the sexual one -- the easiest (and indeed the only legal way) to do so remains opting for a heterosexual relationship. So the human costs we only
got a glimpse of on Thursday -- a shattered marriage, the anguish inflicted on his parents, his wife, his daughters -- are not just the result of his personal choices but of the roadblocks society continues to place in the path of the complete acceptance of gay men and women.
By the time the curtain comes up on this drama’s Act Five we could be in the middle of a serious political scandal that may force McGreevey to step down even before Nov. 15. Or we may be in the middle of his political resurrection, looking not at a tortured politician with a secret draining away precious energy but a free man fully -- and finally -- accepting himself. Either way, he had to practically drive the car right off the
cliff in order to put himself on the road to Thursday’s declaration. And that's an indictment of our society and our political culture wars.
So until the final curtain falls, let’s seize the moment to reaffirm, loudly and without reservation, that to be gay is to be normal -- whether you’re a governor or a gardener, a public figure or a very private one.
Thank you very much for your kind sentiments. Though we expected the courts to rule that Mayor Newsom did not have the authority to perform our wedding, we were saddened by the decision to void it. However the struggle is not over. In time we believe that our relationship will be recognized.
Here's the story of our wedding on Valentine's Day at San Francisco City Hall.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/22/LVGPM53H861.DTL
Tom
Sounds like you have a fantastic mother-in-law. My mother was like that.
Guten Morgen Monamona! Grüße von San Francisco wo ist das immer nebelig.
Gehen QBID!!!
The ignore feature works beautifully. Reading this board had become an unpleasant experience because of some nasty political or homophobic remarks by just a few people. Then I took someone's advice and blocked their messages. Occasionally now I can tell that something nasty's been going on, but I don't have to be bothered with it. Reading this board is enjoyable again, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything.
To activate the "Hide Poster" option, go to Tools/My Filters. Thereafter all you have to do is click on the poster's name and select the "Hide" option.
This lineup looks really interesting. It suggests an inside perspective that Logo and others will likely not achieve. Our Q has the potential for being very attractive to my fellow gay folk. It will all depend on the programming itself, of course. Time will tell. But I'd say things continue to look up.
"It's not over until Frank sings!"
BigTips, that has to be the best laugh in weeks. I don't care what happens to the pps. You've made my day.
That's a very good article from Tim Goodman. It points to something which I think favors Q Television over Logo. A stand-alone subscription channel does not have to be so cautious, and therefore so boring.
LOL Well that explains today's big jump in pps!
"You reap what you sow, however you don't reap in the same season." I like that. Thank you Garth.
Great posts, Ralph. Thank you!
Oops! Sorry! Mystery solved.
As long as we're guessing, couldn't Val be a guy? I know a Russian guy by the name of Valery. (Pronoounced va-LYEH-ry)
The idea of encouraging the Traditional Values Coalition or other hate groups to protest QTV in order for us to gain publicity concerns me. In my humble opinion we have no idea how this might impact potential carriers, some of whom might be in negotiations right now.
Well, I hope you're right!
Anyway, thank you for your many great posts.
Hi Foxy,
To answer your question about the gay population of San Francisco I took a look at the 2000 Census figures on gay couples.
http://mysearch.myway.com/jsp/GGcres.jsp?id=0JfXXDLH6rYJ&su=http%3A//mysearch.myway.com/jsp/GGma...
San Francisco isn't that big of a town. The total population is about 750,000. It's estimated that the gay population of SF is about 80,000. However, the entire Bay Area has a total population of about 5,000,000. If you make a conservative estimate of 10%, that would put the gay population of the Bay Area around half a million.
It's still hard to get statistics on the gay population.
Not all the Bay Area has RCN. Our area does, but so far only high-speed internet is available to us on RCN at our address.
Anyway, I think today is a great start. If it's true that more carriers will be announced, then this is only the beginning.
We should start a group called Investors Anonymous.
"Hello. My name is Spring, and I'm a bounce-oholic."
Wheeeeeeeeeeee?
A man was driving through a storm in the mountains when he lost control of his car. The last thing he remembered was crashing through the guard rail. Then he woke up to discover himself sitting in Hell.
"This is terrible!", he moaned. "I can't believe it!"
"Hey, it's not so bad", said a reassuring voice. The man turned to discover the Devil sitting right beside him.
"Oh no!" the man exclaimed in horror. "I've got to get out of here!"
"Why? It's a great place", the Devil reassured him. "Hell is MUCH better than the other place. It's so boring up there. You're going to love it down here."
"Oh, sure. You'd say anything. You're the Devil."
"No, I mean it! Everybody has a great time down here. People just love it, because you can really be yourself. For example, let me ask you a question. Did you smoke?"
"Well, yes, I suppose I did on occasion….. I mean I tried to quit….." replied the man apologetically.
"Well then you're going to just LOVE Mondays!" exclaimed the Devil. "Every Monday that's all we do. Cigars, cigarettes, pipes, anything you want, all day long non-stop. It's great! And hey, you don't have to worry about it, right? I mean you're already dead, so what's the problem?"
"Yeah, ok, but this is still Hell, right? I mean it's got to be bad."
"I’m telling you, it's fabulous down here! Did you drink?"
"Maybe once in a while…. in moderation" the man replied sheepishly.
"Well then you're going to just LOVE Tuesdays! Every Tuesday that's all we do. Drink, drink, drink….. every kind of booze you can imagine…. one after another…. non-stop all day…. and you don't have to worry about getting drunk because this is Hell, so who cares."
"Well, I don't know" said the man.
"Oh, come on. You'll love it down here. Did you do drugs?"
"Well, I wasn't an addict, or anything like that. I might have tried grass once or twice."
"Well then you're going to just LOVE Wednesdays! On Wednesdays that all we do. We puff…. we snort…. we shoot…. we toot…. all day long…. even stuff you never heard of. And it's not like you have to worry about becoming an addict."
"You know," replied the man, "This doesn't sound so bad. Maybe everything I heard about Hell wasn't true after all."
"I told you! It's a fabulous place to be! Were you gay?"
"Uh, no, sorry, I wasn't."
"Oh" said the Devil, his expression suddenly falling. "Oh, dear. That's too bad. Well, I'm afraid you're going to just HATE Thursdays."
"Some of the topics are inflamatory, but a long as the discussion remains respectful, members can possbily learn something of value in life just by participating."
Like last Friday when several of your posts had to be deleated? Telling a guy to stick his head in an oven? Calling a Viet Nam vet a flag burner?
Please stop.
Hey Skunks,
Thanks for the things you said today.
Monamona,
Say that again!
And just by mentioning it again you caused the stock to jump some more! Way to go!!
You're married?! That does it. We're through!
So you're not attracted to blue-eyed blonds? DARN! I'd be willing to change. ;0)
Good morning everyone. Wow! Looks like my response to Quentin has cause quite a stir. I know his question was sincere and not meant to offend, and my response was the same.
Living here in the SF Bay area I forget that "what causes it" can still be a serious topic of discussion. I mean, everybody here knows lots of gay people, so the question, if asked, would have such a personal face on it that it would be like saying, "Oh hi, Joe. We were just discussing what causes you."
When I was a kid the "big theory" of course was that "it" was caused by an overly-dominant mother and a weak or absent father. Well, my dad was an ex-marine, and mom was just right. Anyway, that old theory bit the dust a long time ago.
My only point, and this is not directed at Quentin or anyone else, is that a lot of theories start off trying to explain "what went wrong". Like the weak father theory, they seek to explain what went wrong to cause someone to be gay. That's where the theories start, and that's where they go wrong, in my humble opinion. Because being gay isn't a disorder. I think that fact is going to be widely recognized eventually. I hope I can say that without offending anyone.
In a world where the overwhelming majority is straight it's completely understandable for people to wonder why some people aren't. But I think if we are ever to get to the reasons, it will probably come from asking both questions at the same time. Why are people gay? Why are people straight? When we understand one, we'll understand the other. Or maybe by then we just won't care.
But the thing I really want to know is why this discussion on the board today has caused the stock to go up.
Quentin,
Your question troubles me because I know it was sincere and not meant to give offense. I hope you won't take offense at what I say.
You ask if being gay is environmental and/or genetic, and you mention several chromosomal disorders. Being gay isn't a disorder, so any theory that seeks to answer "what went wrong" is doomed to fail. The problem is with the question.
Go Tweety! Yaaay!
Great string of posts since market close today. Thanks everyone. And thank you Matrixxx for teaching this novice that DD stands for "Due Diligence" and not "Direct Discovery", "Down'n Dirty", or any of the other things I'd imagined.
On gay marriage from today's San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/13/MNGNT7KKLE1.DTL
~~~~~~
GOP senators in disarray over gay marriage
They fear proposed amendment will fall short of a majority
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
~~~~~~
Washington -- Sharp internal divisions sent Senate Republican leaders scrambling behind closed doors Monday to salvage a constitutional amendment to ban same- sex marriage from an embarrassing defeat that could leave it short of even a simple majority.
The disarray broke out just two days before Republican leaders had planned a politically sensitive vote to put senators on record about whether a constitutional amendment should declare that marriage remain the union of one man and one woman.
But instead of a landmark debate, Republicans found themselves filibustering their own amendment to stop it from coming to the floor on Wednesday for a straight up-or-down vote -- out of fear that it might fail to get even 51 votes, much less the 67, or two-thirds majority, required to amend the Constitution.
Republicans apparently were taken by surprise when Democrats, sensing a huge victory, offered to lift their own objections and proceed to direct consideration of the measure.
As many as a dozen Republicans, various aides and lobbyists said, might bolt from their party on the issue. Many Republicans have long been wary of federal intrusion on what has always been a state domain, believing an amendment would violate their basic principle of keeping the federal government out of state matters.
Many also have expressed concern that the current wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment also would ban civil unions and domestic partnerships that are considered legal alternatives to marriage.
So amendment proponents, led by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., floated the idea of offering an alternative version that might allay some worries about civil unions and improve the vote count.
But Democrats refused to go along, noting that Republicans had already bypassed the regular committee process to get the amendment directly to the floor and now found themselves trying to rewrite the measure at the last minute.
"We're going to win this," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who strongly opposes the amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. "We're going to show that they don't have near the number of votes they need, and hopefully this will put an end to it."
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said he would be "surprised if we didn't get eight to 12 Republican senators voting against the resolution" and accused Republicans of trying to avoid the "embarrassment to take place where this resolution gets 42 votes."
Proponents, instead of agreeing to vote on the amendment, filed a motion to shut off debate, which is scheduled to be voted on Wednesday. The Senate needs 60 votes to end the debate and move the senators to an up-or-down vote on the amendment.
No one believes any marriage amendment, no matter how it is worded, will come anywhere close to gaining the two-thirds necessary for passage. But both sides have been lobbying fiercely to get a simple majority that would allow them to declare a big moral victory.
All-out lobbying by religious conservatives inundated the offices and phone lines of several Senate offices on Capitol Hill for much of Monday. On Sunday, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family -- two socially conservative groups vigorously backing the amendment -- held a radio, television and Internet simulcast in churches across the country urging people to call a list of 26 senators considered potential "yes" votes for the amendment.
"The response we've gotten has been overwhelming," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, adding that the simulcast reached more than 1 million people.
The phone lines of several senate offices -- such as Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., who has said he doubts whether an amendment is necessary -- were tied up much of the day.
Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, also a California Democrat who strongly opposes the amendment, also received a barrage of phone calls, e-mails and petitions, with more than 52,000 going to Feinstein's office and 30,000 to Boxer's, running heavily in favor of the amendment, the staffs said.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a big amendment backer, hosted a press conference of largely African American leaders denouncing gay activists' claims that marriage is a civil rights issue.
Seeking to lift their vote count among their rank and file, Republican leaders struggled to come up with alternative wording for the constitutional amendment that would reduce it to the first sentence of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo. It reads:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Gay activists and others contend the second sentence would prohibit civil unions and domestic partnerships.
The wording of the amendment has been a point of contention for both sides since the amendment was first brought up months ago, in response to the Massachusetts high court decision to allow same-sex marriages in that state May 17.
Democrats have been mostly boycotting the Senate debate, with the exception Monday of Feinstein, who took to the floor to denounce the amendment as a political ploy and say that states, including California, are proving themselves capable of handling marriage issues.
Feinstein said California courts are considering whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom violated the law in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in February, and that the case is not dealing with the constitutionality of the state's same-sex marriage ban itself.
"For the life of me, I don't understand what honest motive there is in putting this in front of this body to philosophically debate marriage on a constitutional amendment that is not going to happen, and which is enormously divisive in all of our communities," Feinstein said.
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said Republicans could not "get their act together" and insisted that Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, "had it right this weekend" when she told CNN that states should maintain their authority over marriage laws and refusing to answer directly whether she supported a constitutional amendment to ban same- sex marriage. The Cheneys' daughter Mary is a lesbian who is working on her father's campaign.
"The wife of the vice president was right," Daschle said. "We ought to listen to her advice."
Ya know, I would have never tried "dun", but now that you mention it, it works. Especially in the expanded section just before the shark gets her. da dun DUH da... da dun DUH da...
You're good!
GreatKahn,
My "da" refrence: You were quoting the movie "Jaws". Well, I was refering to the shark theme from the musical score. You know, whenever the shark was about to attack they played that "da....da da....da" theme. I just assumed everybody would make the connection, but then I'm a musician. Pay no attention.
But I wan't worked up. I liked it. I'm one of your fans. And I believe in a little entertainment, especially when things are tense. The sharks may be circling, but I intend to be one of those who come out of the water unscathed.
Don't ya feel the sharks a circlin'?
da......da
da......da
da...da...da...da
da..da..da..da..da..da..
Well that certainly was worth getting up early to watch.
Woooooooah!
Weeeeeeeee!
Wooooooooh!
Weeeeeeeeee!
Could have been worse. Guess we're still waiting for those Ts to be dotted and those eyes to be crossed.
Dr. S,
The Skandahüvians have a word for someone like Mr. Higgings. "Schmårkweispüpør" It's hard to translate, but literally it refers to the precise moment when doggy doo turns white.