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.
Great work on the thread's main page.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=413
On that second picture, given the position and movement of the turkey's mouth along with the placement of the guy's hand, I can see why he is smiling so. Is he getting or giving thanks?
Edit -- You could put the Red Dog next to it for equality's sake.
Troy
Huh?
and palindrome grub
Troy
I thought that Windows Computer campaign was disabled. Was it the one for XP itself or for a computer from Insight with XP installed?
I do not recall for sure. As best I recall, it was a pure MS ad. I do recall seeing the MS Windows logo in or around, I think, the lower right corner of text with something else to the right of it.
I started looking trough my Temp. Internet Folder to see if I could locate it, but am not sure exactly which file I am looking for. Edit: found it, it is this one:
http://st.valueclick.com/ad.s/a0071001.gif
Troy
Speaking of Red Dog, has everyone seen the "real" Red Dog image; upside down and partially covered?
PS -- it is easier to print it out and turn it upside down than to turn your monitor over
Troy
I got 2. Michelob and Red Dog.
I thought the Michael picture was of Jackson. I have no idea who Michael Lobe is.
Troy
Troy,, you hit the nail right on the head.. I can see it now..
Looks like in more than one way.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=595845
ROFLMAO.
Troy
Krispy Kreme is located under "medical - drugs"
Which just continues to prove that most things are just a matter of perspective.
Troy
My VS ad quest.....
Figured it would be like slot machines.
Up to 10 and no VS.....
Reload that several times and you'll eventually see it.
Saw stress relievers come up and thought I had it...but nope.
Up to 20 and no VS results...this is getting to be too much like the real world.
Got the MS Windows ad around 49
I gave up looking for VS at around 69 refreshes -- thought it was an appropriate place to start watching the football game again.
I think "eventually" is both the dog and the tail of VS -- how about this for their new ad campaign.
Victoria Secrets -- for when eventually comes.
Troy
You wearing Victoria's Secret stuff is a mental picture I'd just as soon not have.
I am just trying to picture KKD's in red. It could fruit filled a whole new meaning.
Troy
Will Vegas be an event with.................
We ought to organize our own Oceans 11 (with a legal twist). Hit multiple casinos at the same time. It could turn into a PR event for IHub.
Troy
Thanks. I knew it was already on the "list," but just wanted to add my two cents.
I did not know that setting the batch view to 500 affected this and would give a partial solution. So, just asking got me a temporary answer.
Now then, come one, really, you ought to be able to do everything everyone wants immediately.
Maybe a short jail stint with only three posts a day would free up some time for ya. <g>
Troy
I join gotmilk (but for different reasons) in seeking to get a true delete function for PMs. Some are just snippets of conversations that I could care less about saving and would rather use the visible 100 or so to retain those that I may want to refer back to at some other time.
A couple alternatives may be: (1) an option to save or show 500 instead or 100; (2) a "Keep" option for PMs that would allow us to specially save those that we really want to keep.
Troy
You questions are not profound
No offense, but that was the point - they were not profound.
Troy
That was a short pump cycle. Any idea what prompted it? I bought more but was sure the pump could have achieved a buck.
I want to make sure I understand your post. Thus a few questions:
1. Almost a week after the price spike, you ask what prompted it and also indicate that you bought more?
2. A week later, you have no idea what prompted it?
3. How could you have no idea what prompted it, yet also characterize it is a "pump cycle?"
In the spirit of fairness, here is an answer to your question about how extreme the retraction could be. The "retraction" from the "pump" can go back to where it started. Could it go lower than where it started? Yes, but then it will no longer be a retraction -- it will just be normal money loss from a sinking stock price.
Troy
I did not read into TC's purchase lately as any attempt at any PR but simply a reporting requirement mandated by law when an insider buys.
That is the point. The legally required reporting requirement was the SEC filing, not the press release. NVEI did more: they released it as a press release. There is NO purpose in publishing the information as a press release unless it is intended to be PR.
Troy
Okay, just so it won't be dry...
1. You could invite mikey back for say a couple hours a week? Seems like he found a way to get back for a couple hours last week anyway.
2. I'll chime in with a couple of things that will likely be a bit disagreeable. Was I the only one to sense that some of the current RAQs were less than I had hoped?
A. No third party verification? I understand their explanation, but I don't particularly like it.
B. The "bad weather" answer gave me shivers -- is this a preview to some kind of future excuse?
C. The "we may not have more external telco trials and may just rely on internal data" also reads like one of those future excuses in waiting.
Of course, they are not required to do the RAQs, but it did seem, on the whole, like these were toned down a bit.
Troy
R3:
Thanks for the reply. It answered some questions and raised a couple more. It makes sense that the broker would want verification that unregistered, restricted stock could be legitimately sold. After looking a bit closer at Rule 144, (amazing what happens when one actually looks at the Rule), it appears that the broker is (among other things) required to make reasonable inquiry into certain facts before the broker can execute the sales transaction. Thus, it appears, the need for information from the company.
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/forms/144.htm
It also appears that this process does not result in "registration" of the stock. Rather, Rule 144 seems to apply the requirements and restrictions precisely because these are sales of unregistered stock. Thus, Rule 144 appears to impose burdens not only on the seller, but on the broker executing the sale to make sure that the provisions of the rule are satisfied (and thus, the public protected). As a check, the broker's reasonable inquiry responsibility seems contemplate that the company issuing the stock will have to be contacted and that such contact will usually disclose any conditions that would prevent a legal sale of the stock.
From the looks of Rule 144, I'd bet that the letter from NV to your broker contained a lot more than just that you had held the stock for at least a year.
As an aside, it also seems that those folks who loaned the company money and have a conversion option at .40 (or otherwise) would acquire restricted stock subject to Rule 144 and that their holding period would not begin until they exercised their conversion option, actually received the stock, and fully paid for the stock.
Just thinking out loud, I wonder if any or all of those loans have been converted (i.e., the one year holding period has run or is running)? It seems like the last time someone asked that question, the answer was that none had converted, but it may have been many moons ago when that question was last asked.
Troy
My first decent GRUB....
Edit -- wife standing here asked, "What is a grub?" I explained. She responds, "You are way too into that" accompanied by a sigh and a roll of the eyes.
And all that for my first grub.....
Troy
...........this might be.............
Troy
I think.......
Troy
Mr. Houston, remember McDonald's paying $3 million for the hot coffee spilled in a driver's lap?
No, I don't remember that since no such thing ever happened. See below.
As for your real question:
What do you think this will be worth?
I think that this is a prime opportunity for someone to design and market laptop groin shields a/k/a laptop condoms. When one spends too much time with a real hottie in one's lap, vital things are bound to get burned. It is also an opportunity for development of mini shock absorbers for keyboards. You cannot have them bouncing around. The other day I saw a laser generated keyboard. The laser sensed where the fingers broke its field to know which "key(s)" were being pressed. Perhaps, this ought to be marketed on some of those porn sites: it gives new meaning to let your fingers do the walking.
Troy
-------------------------------------
Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case
In 1994 Stella Liebeck, a 79-year old retired sales clerk, bought a 49-cent cup of coffee from a drive- through McDonald's in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She was in the passenger seat of a car driven by her grandson. Ms. Liebeck placed the cup between her legs and removed the lid to add cream and sugar when the hot coffee spilled out on her lap causing third-degree burns on her groin, inner thighs and buttocks.
This infamous case has become a leading rallying point for those advocating restrictions on the ability of consumers to use the U.S. civil justice system to hold corporations accountable for the injuries they cause. A New Mexico jury awarded Ms. Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages and in an instant, the media and legal community were up in arms. Newspaper headlines such as "Hot cup of coffee costs $2.9 million," or "Coffee Spill Burns Woman; Jury Awards $2.9 Million" painted the picture of a "runaway jury," an unreasonable award and a perverted system of justice. However, both the media and those who want to take away consumers' legal rights conveniently overlooked the facts of the case, creating a "legal myth" or a poster-case for corporate entities with a vested interest in limiting the legal rights of consumers.
The Facts A detailed look at the facts of this case reveal that in light of McDonalds' actions, the awards were justified:
By its own corporate standards, McDonald's sells coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. A scientist testifying for McDonald's argued that any coffee hotter than 130 degrees could produce third degree burns. Likewise, a scientist testifying on behalf of Ms. Liebeck noted that it takes less than three seconds to produce a third degree burn at 190 degrees.
During trial, McDonald's admitted that it had known about the risk of serious burns from its coffee for more than 10 years. From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's received at least 700 reports of burns from scalding coffee; some of the injured were children and infants. Many customers received severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs and buttocks. In addition, many of these claims were settled for up to $500,000.
Witnesses for McDonald's testified that consumers were not aware of the extent of danger from coffee spills served at the company's required temperature. McDonald's admitted it did not warn customers and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.
As a result of her injuries, Ms. Liebeck spent eight days in a hospital. In that time she underwent expensive treatments for third-degree burns including debridement (removal of dead tissue) and skin grafting. The burns left her scarred and disabled for more than two years. Before a suit was ever filed, Liebeck informed McDonald's about her injuries and asked for compensation for her medical bills, which totaled almost $11,000.
McDonald's countered with a ludicrously low $800 offer.McDonald's had several other chances to settle the case before trial: At one point, Liebeck's attorney offered to settle for $300,000. In addition, days before the trial, the judge ordered both sides into a mediated settlement conference where the mediator, a retired judge, recommended that McDonald's settle for $225,000. McDonald's refused all attempts to settle the case.
The Findings The jury found that Ms. Liebeck suffered $200,000 in compensatory damages for her medical costs and disability. The award was reduced to $160,000 since the jury determined that 20 percent of the fault for the injury belonged with Ms. Liebeck for spilling the coffee.
Based on its finding that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious or wanton conduct, the jury then awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages; essential to the size of the award was the fact that at the time McDonald's made $1.35 million in coffee sales daily.
Since the purposes of awarding punitive damages are to punish the person or company doing the wrongful act and to discourage him and others from similar conduct in the future, the degree of punishment or deterrence resulting from a judgment is in proportion to the wealth of the guilty person. Punitive damages are supposed to be large enough to send a message to the wrongdoer; limited punitive awards when applied to wealthy corporations, means the signal they are designed to send will not be heard. The trial court refused to grant McDonald's a retrial, finding that its behavior was "callous." The judge, however, announced in open court a few days after the trial that he would reduce the punitive damages award to $480,000. Both sides appealed the decision.
Before the appeals could be heard the parties reached an out-of-court agreement for an undisclosed amount of money. As part of this settlement, McDonald's demanded that no one could release the details of the case.
Based on the facts, Corporate America's and much of the media's trivial portrayal of the case is deceptive and disgraceful. They have painted a misleading picture of a "legal horror story" when in fact, the case demonstrates a legal system that punishes corporations for misconduct and protects consumers who may be victims of their wrongdoing.
11/30/99NOTES (The nature of the private settlement and lack of public court documents resulted in the use of primarily newspaper sources.)
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785
Troy
but it depends on whose ox gets gored.
No question about it -- all a matter of perspective. But, I always prefer that it not be my ox getting gored (or bushed for that matter).
Troy
You guys need a decent QB. Seattle ain't GB (yet), even though he wants them to be. Alexander was sure a ray of hope last year. Glad I passed on him for my fantasy team this year though.
Troy
I suppose that I had it coming today for being a bit too cynical.
Headed to the courthouse for an afternoon setting. Client was to be there at 1:30 p.m. After another court, I got there about 2:00 p.m. No client.
He is early 20s, married, and a child less than 3 months old. He had three problems. He was on probation for DWI in County A and picks up a new DWI in county B. As part of the new charge, they also seek to suspend his license for failing to take the breath test on the new DWI. Too make a long story short, he is in a world of hurt. New case is 105 mph on radar with an accident 30 seconds later. Neither he nor his passenger hurt. Old probation case is in a court with a rep for serious jail time (90-180 days) on screwed up probations.
The poor guy really cannot afford me or anyone else for that matter. I have cut him a great deal of slack on paying everything up front, but he is habitually behind on what he promises to do. The cops suck so bad that we win the license suppression hearing on the merits, which also makes the other cases begin to look a bit better. Of course, this has no direct affect on his ability to fund his own defense.
Today, however, he decides that he has more important things to do than be in court. After I arrive and find that he is not there, I call his cell phone.
His wife answers and after asking who I am, she talks to someone else briefly. She then explains why he is not in court.
Seems as though, he has decided that he just could not take the pressure anymore and while with his grandparents and while talking to his wife on the phone, decides that a bullet through his head is better than court.
His wife is on his cell at his grandparent's house because she cannot be at the hospital because the homicide detectives are still interviewing everyone.
The judge reluctantly resets the case (half suspecting that the story is just a story and not real) and does nor forfeit his bond.
Last I heard, he was still in surgery after about 8 hours. Not sure if that is good or bad. Today sucked for him and me. Guess that will teach me about being too cynical.
I made it over 15 years with no clients doing this. He is now number four in the last year.
Time to get some sleep. Mini-yawn-a all.
Troy
No, but I should have.
Troy
Thanks excel. I was thinking about saying that (Seahawks suck), but figured I'd be nice for a while. You took the letters off of my fingers.
Troy
~~~COMPX 11/22/2002~~~~~
Previous Close 1467.56
1414.14 shao
1437.00 AK
1455 WTMHouston
1460 Albert
1492 timhyma
1499 Muell
1503 Churak
Since no one liked them, I ahve left off the decimals.
Troy
you must first request and recieve a letter from New Visuals lawers.
How come? Is it one of the restrictions on the stock or is it some kind of legal requirement.
I do not doubt that it has to happen since almost no one would spend the $200 if they did not have to do so. I am just trying to understand why and why it is required.
Troy
Jon:
Ignoring why you are here and continuing to do nothing but pump will likely get you terminated before it gets you reinstated.
Do you even care that you are here instead of being able to post elsewhere on the site?
Troy
I meant the skirt not what was under it....
Troy
Which leads me to my last observation for a while....
I just realized why I like this place. It is just like the real world -- working with the innocent and guilty alike, but getting paid better to get the guilty set free -- or at least most of the free world thinks so. Most innocent folks just can't afford being innocent.
Speaking of which, time to go save some innocents and do wallet biopsies on the guilty. Even those who go free get punished. Better that I get it than the government anyway.
Troy
Some things are better not seen -- especially in jail....
Troy
The staff here is all volunteer, so it's hard for us to get fired.
Just imagine what it would be like if we actually got paid for this. Wait, there is song coming into my head....
And the world (and the world) will be a better place
All the world (all the world) will be a better place
For you (for you)
And me (and me)
You just wait (just wait)
And see, wait and see
http://ntl.matrix.com.br/pfilho/html/lyrics/p/put_a_little_love_in_your_heart.txt
Later plagiarized, in part, my Michael Jackson.....
...the world
[will be] a better place
for you
and for me
and the entire human race
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/healthe.htm
But, be careful, Michael Jackson lyrics in the jail could be real dangerous.
Troy
Losing a little money in the stock doesn't flip someone out this bad.
That is because it was not about losing money, it was about not making enough. More folks wish they had that problem.
Troy
You clowns are the only thing this place has going for it.
Uh-hum......
This is the true no clown zone. All others are just pretenders.
Troy
Not that it really matters beyond my academic curiosity, but if they are the same thing then I really do not understand your original post:
WTM: they have to be registered in advance and it is not an overnight process. they have to be sent to the registering company in NJ (i think that is the place)with instructions for the registration. there is also a fee which in depending on how they are held is not small.
Why couldn't you just fill out and file a Form 144? Why must the security be sent to anyone, other than the broker who may be selling it? Isn't the 144 public notice of the intent to sell restricted, unregistered securities? I did not think that any private company could register shares and that registration could only happen with public filings. Why is my impression inaccurate?
I must be missing something here because nothing involving the government is ever as simple as it seems or as it should be.
Troy
Excel, thanks for the info. It sure seems like someone could file the 144 at the exact moment (or at least a fraction of a second before) the actual sale. Okay, I'll stop being lazy and look at the SEC web site.....
It looks like the filing can be at the same time as the order to sell.
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/forms/144.htm
Reg. §230.144.
(h) Notice of proposed sale. If the amount of securities to be sold in reliance upon the rule during any period of three months exceeds 500 shares or other units or has an aggregate sale price in excess of $10,000, three copies of a notice on Form 144 shall be filed with the Commission at its principal office in Washington, D.C.; and if such securities are admitted to trading on any national securities exchange, one copy of such notice shall also be transmitted to the principal exchange on which such securities are so admitted. The Form 144 shall be signed by the person for whose account the securities are to be sold and shall be transmitted for filing concurrently with either the placing with a broker of an order to execute a sale of securities in reliance upon this rule or the execution directly with a market maker of such a sale. Neither the filing of such notice nor the failure of the Commission to comment thereon shall be deemed to preclude the Commission from taking any action it deems necessary or appropriate with respect to the sale of the securities referred to in such notice. The requirements of this paragraph, however, shall not apply to securities sold for the account of any person other than an affiliate of the issuer, provided the conditions of paragraph (k) of this rule are satisfied.
(i) Bona Fide Intention to Sell. The person filing the notice required by paragraph (h) shall have a bona fide intention to sell the securities referred to therein within a reasonable time after the filing of such notice.
(j) Non-exclusive rule. Although this rule provides a means for reselling restricted securities and securities held by affiliates without registration, it is not the exclusive means for reselling such securities in that manner. Therefore, it does not eliminate or otherwise affect the availability of any exemption for resales under the Securities Act that a person or entity may be able to rely upon.
(k) Termination of certain restrictions on sales of restricted securities by persons other than affiliates. The requirements of paragraphs (c), (e), (f) and (h) of this section shall not apply to restricted securities sold for the account of a person who is not an affiliate of the issuer at the time of the sale and has not been an affiliate during the preceding three months, provided a period of at least two years has elapsed since the later of the date the securities were acquired from the issuer or from an affiliate of the issuer. The two-year period shall be calculated as described in paragraph (d) of this section.
Troy
Isn't the registration process different from and in addition to the filing of the intent to sell? Thus, one could register the shares without filing a 144 evidencing an intent to sell?
Troy
No question about it and I agree. If they do not have "it" and "it" is not as good as they have clearly implied, even though they have just as clearly not been specific, then I imagine a lot of folks will be screaming for proverbial heads to roll -- all the way to prison cells. Frankly, this was probably the deciding factor in my buy decision; it tipped the risk-reward analysis, even though I still see the risk as substantial and still see some serious problems and potential problems. I simply treated it as an investment that I would not cry about it if went to zero.
Troy
Can't they file them at the same time that they sell (or even within a very short time thereafter)? There is not a requirement that it be filed in advance, is there?
Troy