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.
Even laggard stocks like YHOO are coiling here and are poised for a strong breakout in the week or so ahead.
YHOO is up over 50% in the last month ($9ish to $15ish) -- almost straight up. Respectfully, just where is the coil in that move? Seems more likely to retrace some of that up move. Longer term looks like strong support at $9ish and some serious resistance at $20ish.
Here is one view from Morningstar suggesting (albeit on a fundamental basis) some serious downside for YHOO.....
----------------------
Yahoo now swims with sharks 2002-11-01
As the 'Net portal leaves its core competency to compete with the likes of AOL and Microsoft, its prospects look dim.
by T. K. MacKay, stock analyst, Morningstar
We fear that as Yahoo! (YHOO) changes its business model by entering areas like broadband access, games, and classifieds, its overall competitive advantage could deteriorate as a result of increased rivalry from the likes of America Online (AOL) and Microsoft (MSFT). We wouldn't touch Yahoo above $5 per share.
According to the Internet Advertising Bureau, the top 10 Web sites, including Yahoo.com, received 77 percent of the $7.2 billion spent on advertising in 2001. Yahoo derives its competitive advantage from a loyal user base of more than 200 million visitors a month. With a cult following comes lucrative advertising revenue, which tops $500 million on an annualized basis.
Advertising is a cyclical business, however, as evidenced by Yahoo's 35 percent drop in revenue in 2001. The company has made a big push to shield its top line from the volatile advertising market, which contributes just 59 percent of its revenue compared with more than 90 percent in 1998.
New business lines like fees, listings, and transactions contribute 41 percent of revenue, up from less than 5 percent in 1998. The company's recent moves, including the acquisition of HotJobs, a partnership with SBC Communications (SBC) to deliver broadband access to consumers, and a big push into subscription music and online games, are distancing Yahoo's overall business from the advertising market even more.
In doing this, Yahoo is moving away from the business in which it has a big competitive advantage and stepping on rival turf. We believe that both AOL and MSN have created alliances that outpace Yahoo in terms of the content that they can deliver to their respective online networks.
We're skeptical about how many Yahoo users are willing to pay $14.95 a month to play online games or listen to music. We are also concerned that content from businesses like PressPlay and Yahoo Movies won't hold a candle to AOL Time Warner, once the latter delivers content to the Web in broadband style.
Historically, Yahoo's Web sites have provided content that earned the company a substantial economic moat and fat advertising fees. When this content moves behind a fee-based wall, however, Yahoo may lose its appeal to the average user. No matter how popular Yahoo may be to consumers today, the online media industry has one sustainable trait: There are plenty of substitute goods that consumers can choose, especially if these goods can be had for free. For these reasons, we would look for a substantial margin of safety--one of 50 percent or more--before considering the stock.
Troy
Just finished listening to all of them. My favorites were Seinfeld, Meg, Fat Ass, Kirk, Igor, and AustinPowers, which I almost missed since it was not added at the bottom.
You might want to think about adding a star or an (off color) or an (OC) notation to the Southpark ones -- something to notify folks that it may be off color.
Still think it is a great idea -- although it probably ended up being more than the minor diversion it started to be.
Troy
your selected sound is played anytime you hit the Update button on the My Settings screen.
Good solution. It also serves the dual prupose of making sure that everyone really knows what they have done when they chose a sound.
BTW, sound is now playing with PMs....and even sometimes before a new messaage shows up in the message count.
Troy
Nice graphic but it takes more like 20 or so to really hit the floor....
Troy
Very interesting chart and a good observation. There is a huge, unusual, inverse divergence between chip shipments and equipment bookings. One would expect chip shipments to come down significantly or equipment bookings to climb significantly, or perhaps both. Clearly, the current trends are likely not sustainable -- even given what most accept as significant over capacity.
History says that equipment bookings are about to climb, but history has not shown this kind of divergence with shipments. Thus, relying on pure history may be problematic.
My best guess, is that we have not yet reached meaningful relative equilibrium. Those who accurately predict where the trends go from here could do very well financially. It may be that volatility in both directions for both markets may still be king.
Troy
Funny that you should mention using PMs as a testing tool. The one place I am not getting the sound is with new PMs -- at least not as of a couple hours ago. (at least I think it was a couple of hours -- the Crown is dulling my sense of time passing).
Edit -- I also just got the sound even though I had no new message, public or private.
Matt had a good idea of just posting a message to oneself on one of the public test threads.
As for the off-color, I had thought about that possibility with Carlin already showing up. <g>
The extras not withstanding, still a nice new feature.
Troy
had you but asked.
I might have done a lot of things, but "but(t) ask[ing]" about anything in the shower ain't one of them.
Troy
And just what kind of behavior modification do you think I need Mr. Savior of Poster's Souls....sounds to me like you could use a lesson or two in humility. Perhaps an inmate will turn the tables on you one day. You may need a little discipline yourself. "Who is guarding the guards?"
By George(tte), I think you've got it. Next time we have an inmate who needs some direction, we'll give you a shout.
Do you have a rack in the jailhouse? Bamboo shoots? restraints?
Nahhhhh, those would just be play things compared to our wit. I did hear a rumor that there was a rack and restraints in the shower, but not having been there personally, I would not know for sure. Think that may be why anne did not stick around?
So, if you don't plead your case you are not let out of jail?
Pleading to us won't get anyone out. We don't hold the proverbial keys. We are just a bunch of loose chains rattling away.
Troy
I have been married too long to know anything about nightlife.
I have been sipping on some fine Crown Special Reserve for the last couple hours, so (aside from it being about time for my typiong and speeling to go to hell in a handbasket), I am well into the mellow zone.
Troy
I agree with CM. Random sounds like a great idea for a great idea. Of course, if you "occasionally" add new sounds everyone with it turned on will occasionally get to react with a "what was that?"
Edit -- one modification to this that would be nice, if not too large a pain in the arse, would be a test button to "play this sound" in order to check out the sound in advance.
Troy
You are saviors?
That should be a statement not a question. We need to get you some behavior modification.
In any event, that would be Mister Manners to you missy......<g>
I suspect that most would think that the majority of us could use some serious mannering lessons. We are not bashful and frequently not very polite about it, but you are right that there is a method (albeit pretty backasswards sometimes) to our madness.
Troy
Glad to see you chime in to our off topic discussion on your thread. Wondered if you were taking it in, so to speak.
All of your comments are very true -- you actually did much better than most with the bait that was hung out for your nibbling pleasure.
I sure was looking forward to Anne and fishy -- too bad they chose just to leave. Their loss and, perhaps, our gain.
Troy
You left off Viagra and 20 something hard body dancers.....
The latter, of course, needed solely for CPR..
Troy
Actually, I was thinking about mentioning Digrdoug's "visit," but thought I would give him the chance to spin it first -- rehabilitated as he is.
Troy
That is how we serve margaritas (made with tequila, not that other rock gut wormy stuff), however.
Troy
How many of you Jailhouse guards are there prey tell?
There is only one guard and warden -- Matt.
The rest of us (a handful or two, no pun intended), the posse, if you will, have in and out privileges. Just a little fun cage rattling.
Troy
Thanks. If anyone else actually takes the time to read it all, and if it makes just one person hesitate to bash all lawyers or to question the legitimacy of who is at fault when a corporation is the target of a class action and spins it as nothing but greedy lawyers, then it was worth taking the time to write it.
I have not read Foucault. Actually, I read so much at work, that about the only fun reading I end up doing is parts of the paper and on-line -- except when in someone's waiting room when an occasional magazine gets skimmed.
We have a local television personality (Marvin Zindler of the Greatest Little Whorehouse fame) whose line at the end of many stories is "It is hell to be poor." There is truth in them there words. I don't think it is everyone's responsibility to help everyone who is poor, (they have to be willing and make an effort to help themselves), but we sure should not punish them for it, either.
Troy
Believe me: we don't settle for nipping at heals....the jugular is a more frequent target.
It is not really cruel, though, just another of life's tribulations. Here, as in real life, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
We are really a bunch of pushovers, if the right buttons are pressed. Some have buttons we don't talk about in public though and some prefer to occupy themselves with the soap in the jail shower. For some, it is just pun-ishment and for some it is phun-ishment.
All-in-all, not a bad place to visit, but hell for those who get stuck there -- especially those with an attitude.
As for the posse, it is a phrase I just coined in response to your last post; kind of like it though.
Most who step on or cross the line get sent to jail rather than being banned or terminated -- pretty generous of Matt really. We really do try and rehabilitate -- in a strange sort of way -- with a lot of phunny (and sometimes corny (but not of the cob variety)) humor thrown in.
Troy
Moral to the story: when you can't get someone to do it to you, you do it by yourself?
Troy
Nahhhh.....
I have more hair, need a much longer tie, and have a larger gut. It is a Texas sized beer, however.
Troy
How long do people get put in Jail?
That depends, in part, on how they take all of the poking and picking they get from the posse. It can be a brutal group. It can also be fairly entertaining, informative, and educational -- depending on one's perspective.
Many have come, few have been chosen.
Troy
I probably should have posted this here to begin with....
Warning -- this ended up much longer than I originally planed -- an occupational hazard
the Miranda Rights will supply anyone who cannot afford an attorney, the services of the same.
If only it were truly so. We have an ongoing battle in Houston with some judges over the practice of incarcerating folks who have the audacity not to hire or cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
It works something like this: Poor Joe Q citizen, who also happens to be poor, has the misfortune to be arrested and charged with some offense. His family or friends manage to scrape together a few hundred dollars to pay a bondsman to bail him out. When he shows up to court, the judge says, "Since you have made bond, you must be able to afford an attorney, therefore, you must hire one." The judge makes no effort to take a meaningful look at Joe's financial condition, but just takes it at face value that the ability to make bond equates with the ability to hire a lawyer (even though there is a statute that expressly says it does not and the ability or making of bond is not even a legal factor).
Joe Q's case is reset for a week to three or four. He dutifully contacts several lawyers and learns that hiring one (even the really cheap ones) is MUCH more expensive than the few hundred dollars his friends and family scraped together to pay the bondsman. Basically, he cannot afford it -- no way, no how, no denero.
When he shows back up to court, the judge learns that he has not hired a lawyer, admonishes him for failing to do so, and then revokes his bond and puts him in jail. Now that he is back in jail (where he belongs, of course, because he cannot afford a lawyer), the court appoints a lawyer to represent him. Of course, the threshold criteria for the appointment of a lawyer is that he could not afford one, which was just as true before he was put back in jail.
Think it just happens to the guilty? Hardly. How about the poor chap who spent almost a year in jail just to have the State dismiss the case on the morning of trial because the evidence was insufficient. Or the one who spent nine months in jail before being acquitted. There are lots of examples of it affecting the innocent. Of course, folks think that these kinds of technicalities only affect the guilty. This is a classic example of "if they can get away with it with the guilty, it will also be done to the innocent." Of course, at the beginning of a case no one really knows whether someone is guilty or not and one of the fundamental guarantees of our system is that citizens are presumed innocent. So much for that having any real meaning.
Of course, the lawyer who is appointed to represent him only gets paid about 10 to 20 percent of what a retained lawyer would be paid -- because society, the government, the courts, and the public want to prosecute everyone for everything, but are not the least bit interested in funding the defense of those they are constitutionally required to provide for. When it comes to defending the county, the state or a government official, however, government will spare no expense and will seek the best private sector lawyers money can buy.
Are there some lawyers who abuse the system? Absolutely, but they are a very small minority of the total. Of course, the abuses get the most attention so they are all most people see. It is fundamentally wrong, however, to criticize or despise all lawyers because a very small few abuse the system.
In the same context, what sometimes gets spun as abuse by lawyers is actually caused by people or businesses refusing to simply change illegal practices to make them right or by business doing small things lots of times with the knowledge that the individual damages are so small that no one can do anything about it. I will not attempt to defend every action, and there are some (although very few) abuses, but there is justice in a system that encourages accountability.
For example, let's say credit card corporation A has overcharged millions of people by a small amount on their credit card statements: they have charged 7.99 percent instead of 7.9 percent. Most folks don't even notice it because individually the amounts are very small, a few cents on each statement -- so small in fact that it makes no financial sense for anyone individually to do anything about it. But, cumulatively, it amounts to millions of dollars wrongfully collected (stolen, if you will) by the credit card company over a period of several years. Consumer A figures it out and calls the CC company, whose customer service people say, "No, you must be wrong, our system and computers could not have done it wrong."
Frustrated by the lack of any meaningful response, Consumer goes to see a lawyer and says "take a look at this." Lawyer says, yep you are right and a law suit to collect this will cost you at least $20K to start and probably a whole lot more. The economics (or lack thereof) of this are painfully obvious.
Where is the justice in letting Corporation A continue its practice of stealing millions? To prevent this, the law in most places allows a lawyer to undertake to file a class action lawsuit against Corporation A. The law suit is filed. Corporation A does not simply roll over and say "you know what, we sure did do that. We'll be happy to return millions of dollars to all of our customers without you having to do anything else." Instead, they deny all of the claims and attempt to assert defenses. Economically, they know that they may be able to ultimately settle the case for less than the full liability, but they are going to have to make it look like they will spend millions to defend it.
Eventually, perhaps years later, a settlement is reached that provides for a portion of the damages to be returned to the customers. Since the per customer damages were small to begin with, the settlement amount is even smaller. Each of Corporation A's 5 million customers lost an average of $10 and those who make a claim will only get $2 in cash and a free interest voucher for an additional $2 if they still have an account. Corporation A also agrees to pay the lawyers who took on the case (and who have advanced all of their time and all of the expenses throughout the litigation) $2.5 million and agrees to pay the initial Plaintiff $10K. Just to be sure everything is on the up-and-up and to make sure that this is not just the Plaintiff's lawyers selling out the class so they can recoup what they have spent in time and money, everything has to be approved by the court and everyone has the right to object.
As part of the settlement, Corporation A continues to deny that it did anything wrong and after everything is over will spin it as nothing but greedy lawyers who got rich -- even though the truth is they were caught with their proverbial pants down and got off cheap even considering everything they paid and everything they spent on their own lawyers. They will blame the Plaintiff's lawyers because it makes good press not because it is truthful. They will make it seem like the lawyer "got rich" (i.e., was greedy) by getting $2.5 million, even though the truth is that of that, $500K was advanced out-of-pocket expenses, and even though the lawyers had to also advance salaries for many lawyers, paralegals, secretaries, and others during all of the time the case was pending.
Do some lawyers make very good money? You bet they do. But the impression that "the" lawyer who headed up such a case somehow got rich off the $2.5M paid at settlement is nothing but an urban legend and bears no resemblance to truth, justice, or reality.
Speaking finally of justice: Is it justice that corporation A stole say $50 million and managed to only have to pay back $10 million? Not full justice, but it is a lot closer than it would have been had the lawsuit not happened and a lot less injustice than if that first consumer had dished out $20K or $2.5 million to collect the few dollars involved.
Folks should be careful about making judgments about issues and people based solely on what they hear reported in the press -- particularly when what is reported may be no more than the statements of those who have a vested interest in spinning it to their own financial interest. What they hear in the press is seldom complete and frequently inaccurate. If Enron has taught us anything, it should be not to trust corporate spin at face value.
Simply, without knowing all of the facts, which people can seldom know even when they want to, people cannot make complete or accurate judgments about who or what is to blame and where the real injustice(s) lie.
Troy
Troy
I just got back on and it did play immediately upon the favorites page loading.
I really like the feature, if for no other reason that it beats staring at a silent screen.
My wife got home a while ago, heard it play, and asked "what is that?" I explained. She rolled her eyes. About the third time it played, I got a "that is annoying," so it must be pretty good!
I do need to try out more than the Beatles.
Troy
I am still amazed, given your profession, that you were as concise as you were.
You spoke too soon.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=564762
Troy
Warning -- this ended up much longer than I originally planed -- an occupational hazard
the Miranda Rights will supply anyone who cannot afford an attorney, the services of the same.
If only it were truly so. We have an ongoing battle in Houston with some judges over the practice of incarcerating folks who have the audacity not to hire or cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
It works something like this: Poor Joe Q citizen, who also happens to be poor, has the misfortune to be arrested and charged with some offense. His family or friends manage to scrape together a few hundred dollars to pay a bondsman to bail him out. When he shows up to court, the judge says, "Since you have made bond, you must be able to afford an attorney, therefore, you must hire one." The judge makes no effort to take a meaningful look at Joe's financial condition, but just takes it at face value that the ability to make bond equates with the ability to hire a lawyer (even though there is a statute that expressly says it does not and the ability or making of bond is not even a legal factor).
Joe Q's case is reset for a week to three or four. He dutifully contacts several lawyers and learns that hiring one (even the really cheap ones) is MUCH more expensive than the few hundred dollars his friends and family scraped together to pay the bondsman. Basically, he cannot afford it -- no way, no how, no denero.
When he shows back up to court, the judge learns that he has not hired a lawyer, admonishes him for failing to do so, and then revokes his bond and puts him in jail. Now that he is back in jail (where he belongs, of course, because he cannot afford a lawyer), the court appoints a lawyer to represent him. Of course, the threshold criteria for the appointment of a lawyer is that he could not afford one, which was just as true before he was put back in jail.
Think it just happens to the guilty? Hardly. How about the poor chap who spent almost a year in jail just to have the State dismiss the case on the morning of trial because the evidence was insufficient. Or the one who spent nine months in jail before being acquitted. There are lots of examples of it affecting the innocent. Of course, folks think that these kinds of technicalities only affect the guilty. This is a classic example of "if they can get away with it with the guilty, it will also be done to the innocent." Of course, at the beginning of a case no one really knows whether someone is guilty or not and one of the fundamental guarantees of our system is that citizens are presumed innocent. So much for that having any real meaning.
Of course, the lawyer who is appointed to represent him only gets paid about 10 to 20 percent of what a retained lawyer would be paid -- because society, the government, the courts, and the public want to prosecute everyone for everything, but are not the least bit interested in funding the defense of those they are constitutionally required to provide for. When it comes to defending the county, the state or a government official, however, government will spare no expense and will seek the best private sector lawyers money can buy.
Are there some lawyers who abuse the system? Absolutely, but they are a very small minority of the total. Of course, the abuses get the most attention so they are all most people see. It is fundamentally wrong, however, to criticize or despise all lawyers because a very small few abuse the system.
In the same context, what sometimes gets spun as abuse by lawyers is actually caused by people or businesses refusing to simply change illegal practices to make them right or by business doing small things lots of times with the knowledge that the individual damages are so small that no one can do anything about it. I will not attempt to defend every action, and there are some (although very few) abuses, but there is justice in a system that encourages accountability.
For example, let's say credit card corporation A has overcharged millions of people by a small amount on their credit card statements: they have charged 7.99 percent instead of 7.9 percent. Most folks don't even notice it because individually the amounts are very small, a few cents on each statement -- so small in fact that it makes no financial sense for anyone individually to do anything about it. But, cumulatively, it amounts to millions of dollars wrongfully collected (stolen, if you will) by the credit card company over a period of several years. Consumer A figures it out and calls the CC company, whose customer service people say, "No, you must be wrong, our system and computers could not have done it wrong."
Frustrated by the lack of any meaningful response, Consumer goes to see a lawyer and says "take a look at this." Lawyer says, yep you are right and a law suit to collect this will cost you at least $20K to start and probably a whole lot more. The economics (or lack thereof) of this are painfully obvious.
Where is the justice in letting Corporation A continue its practice of stealing millions? To prevent this, the law in most places allows a lawyer to undertake to file a class action lawsuit against Corporation A. The law suit is filed. Corporation A does not simply roll over and say "you know what, we sure did do that. We'll be happy to return millions of dollars to all of our customers without you having to do anything else." Instead, they deny all of the claims and attempt to assert defenses. Economically, they know that they may be able to ultimately settle the case for less than the full liability, but they are going to have to make it look like they will spend millions to defend it.
Eventually, perhaps years later, a settlement is reached that provides for a portion of the damages to be returned to the customers. Since the per customer damages were small to begin with, the settlement amount is even smaller. Each of Corporation A's 5 million customers lost an average of $10 and those who make a claim will only get $2 in cash and a free interest voucher for an additional $2 if they still have an account. Corporation A also agrees to pay the lawyers who took on the case (and who have advanced all of their time and all of the expenses throughout the litigation) $2.5 million and agrees to pay the initial Plaintiff $10K. Just to be sure everything is on the up-and-up and to make sure that this is not just the Plaintiff's lawyers selling out the class so they can recoup what they have spent in time and money, everything has to be approved by the court and everyone has the right to object.
As part of the settlement, Corporation A continues to deny that it did anything wrong and after everything is over will spin it as nothing but greedy lawyers who got rich -- even though the truth is they were caught with their proverbial pants down and got off cheap even considering everything they paid and everything they spent on their own lawyers. They will blame the Plaintiff's lawyers because it makes good press not because it is truthful. They will make it seem like the lawyer "got rich" (i.e., was greedy) by getting $2.5 million, even though the truth is that of that, $500K was advanced out-of-pocket expenses, and even though the lawyers had to also advance salaries for many lawyers, paralegals, secretaries, and others during all of the time the case was pending.
Do some lawyers make very good money? You bet they do. But the impression that "the" lawyer who headed up such a case somehow got rich off the $2.5M paid at settlement is nothing but an urban legend and bears no resemblance to truth, justice, or reality.
Speaking finally of justice: Is it justice that corporation A stole say $50 million and managed to only have to pay back $10 million? Not full justice, but it is a lot closer than it would have been had the lawsuit not happened and a lot less injustice than if that first consumer had dished out $20K or $2.5 million to collect the few dollars involved.
Folks should be careful about making judgments about issues and people based solely on what they hear reported in the press -- particularly when what is reported may be no more than the statements of those who have a vested interest in spinning it to their own financial interest. What they hear in the press is seldom complete and frequently inaccurate. If Enron has taught us anything, it should be not to trust corporate spin at face value.
Simply, without knowing all of the facts, which people can seldom know even when they want to, people cannot make complete or accurate judgments about who or what is to blame and where the real injustice(s) lie.
Troy
I wonder how subtle the distinction would be or would need to be with a homonymph?
One of two or more (preferable) nymphs whose spelling is irrelevant, whose meaning and pronunciation are only marginally relevant, but whose cleav-age can matter a great deal.
Troy
Did you mistype that?
Wasn't that supposed to be "[to be a] fool [to] everyone."
You need to be more thorough, accurate, and complete next time.
Here fishy, fishy, fishy......
Do you dare to join us?
Troy
I have nothing to say to you except that I want the message thingy to go off for you
While I appreciate the sentiment, only my wife is allowed to make my thingy go off. Sounds like you may have been spending too much time in jail with the soap.
That said, the thingy did go off, but I cannot quite tell what it is that triggers it or better yet, why it plays when it does (i.e., at 30 seconds past a minute rather than at 45 seconds past a minute)
How soon after there is a message is it supposed to play?
Troy
PS edit -- how's that for a softball -- double pun maybe intended.
Edit x 2 -- immediately after editing this message (originally), I manually returned to favorites. At that time, it played. About 30 second later, it appeared to manually refresh, but did not indicate any new messages to me. Even when I again manually refreshed, there were no new messages, so I have no idea what triggers the sound to play -- now I am really confused.
So true -- I much prefer spending my time and labor working for those who will pay than those who want it for free -- although I end up doing a large amount of the later, some voluntarily, which is the way it should be, and some because others think they have the right to steal my time.
There is no other profession where folks think that the professional owes the system a duty to work for free just because someone cannot afford it. Let's see, the auto industry ought to give away free new cars to the poor because they cannot afford to buy nice ones and have to settle for used ones, at best.
There are clearly problems with access by the poor to the legal system, but it is not those of us (the lawyers) working in the system who are at fault -- it is the system, it is the government, and it is the people (citizens) who chose not to require their government to fund things like indigent defense because it is just money spent on lowly criminals.
A corollary to don't do the crime if you can't do the time is:
Don't make it a crime, if you will not spend a dime.
Everything comes with a price -- nothing is free. Just as everyone who brings suit thinks that their claim has merit and is not frivolous, there are just as certainly others who will disagree.
Nuff of my ranting for now.....time to go do some work for someone who is willing to pay for my time and services.
Troy
<<You were getting semi-warm with your first WAG, though.>>
Steaming hot, a couple of items away....I went there looking for something specific instead of just looking. This must have something to do with trees and forests.....
Have it set, now waiting for it to play.......once I hear it, I suspect I'll say "nice new feature." Others sure seem to like it.
Troy
Am I the only one who did not realize that Huck Jimbo was in jail? Maybe not fresh fishy, but meat nonetheless.....
Let's get ready to rrrrruuuuuummmmmmble.......
Troy
WAG...added 50 to the batch view?
Edit: WAG 2: made this board the permeneant top hot board every time there is a new post to it?
Troy
This Jailhouse shelters you all from real life.
Exactamundo -- that is the point, glad you got(it)milk.
Of course, since we deem it to be, it is, and is as real as real life gets -- just ask the folks who had to find the soap how real it is. Folks are allowed to have real fun in real life. Thus, if they are having real fun, it must be real life. (Did I mention I get paid -- pretty well sometimes -- for my deductive abilities and logicalness.)
Side note: AK, did you see that you have been reduced to the third "I forgot the other one" blind mouse? Must not be enough pictures getting posted to keep your memory present at the front of the list. In farming vernacular, that means you suck hind t*t, but it also means that Churak appears to be t*tless.
Troy
Guess that means he won't find any humor in the PM I just sent him. Oh well.
Actually, we (at least most of us) hate clients like that. It is no fun (even when they pay well) to try and get something that is petty, unattainable, and meaningless.
Usually, however, the ones who want to fight over petty stuff are the ones who also don't want to pay, want to micro manage as though they were a lawyer, and end up blaming the lawyer for not getting them what they wanted even though they were plainly told up front that the odds were 1000-1 against ever getting anything. They listen no better than they evaluate priorities. All-in-all major pains in the arse.
I wonder what he'll think he has found under the week old KKD......?
Troy
How rude of him to never show up.....
Guess he could not stomach the potential of jumping from the frying pan into the fire.
Here fishy, fishy, fishy....
Think he'll come if we drop him a hooked line, er call?
Troy
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/profile.asp?user=10866
Edit: there are 58 IHub members with "fish" in their name. A pretty crowded tank.
Sounds like you need some representation there augie.....we'll just start with some advice. If you like the advise, then we'll talk about more formal representation.
First, you may be better off seeking amnesty by casually visiting the jail. Everyone there will assist and help you -- it may not be what you would typically consider help or assistance, but you'll think so by the time it is over. Even if you don't think so, we will, so it will have been worthwhile for you to visit. Like some, you may never want to leave.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=38
Second, you ought to think about adding 10 or 15 more threads to your signature block. Just not enough there now. Besides, so long as you are spamming, you might as well promote more of the site; it may even help your amnesty request.
Third, plan on taking a course in the Bribery 101. It is easier and quicker than Suck Up 101 and 102
Finally, you need to learn how to spell Sheriff. It is spelled.....
M A T T
Hope you have found the advise beneficial. It is definitely and positively worth every dime you have not paid for it.
Troy
~~~COMPX 11/01/2002~~~~~
Previous close 1329.75
1298 timhyma
1302 WTMHouston
1348 shao
1351 MM
This way I have an equal shot at 1300....<g>
Troy
You have good timing imo.
I sure hope so, but a lot of smart folks thought so too at much higher prices. That said, there does seem to be some pretty solid support around .40. At least I will not have as long to wait as many have had.
I will get your packet of koolaid in the mail to you today.
Just make sure whatever it is laced with has some flavor. <g>
Troy
Working fine for me....
Troy
Good news, bad news.....
Glad I did not chase it a couple weeks ago when I could not get it at .47 (although a few days ago, I did bid .48 when the ask was at .50) -- picked it up (at the ask, arg) today at .45. Was bidding .47 a couple days ago when 5K-10K shares went off at .45 -- I really hate the BB games.
Guess that now makes me a long.
Bad news -- if I am long, you folks better watch out -- it must be ready to tank. I (along with many others for that matter) lost my buy-low touch about three years ago.
Here is to keeping promises before year end.
Troy