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.
gotmilk....
I just looked at the posts containing the language you are complaining about and don't really see any problem. None of it was posted to or at you. No one is complaining on the thread -- in fact, the thread seems to be getting along pretty well. While the language is flowerful, in context (which you have taken some of it out of) I did not find it offensive or violative of the TOU.
For example... from
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msgs.asp?board_id=1091&NextStart=142&BatchSize=10
So they cannot manage to put 1,000 tons per day through that magic plant designed to handle 11,000 tpd. 1,000 tons would be about 80 tandem dump truck loads or 10 per hour. This should be easy to achieve.
How much material are they processing? They claimed .5 grams per ton but only made about 1.5 kilos of raw gold in three weeks. The news release was full of weasel holes but they still seem to claim this magic $75 production cost.
If one looks at the price of the stock it is obvious to me that no serious investors believe the news!
A couple of your references are here, but I see nothing wrong with this post -- in context.
Just how do you call something you think to be a scam, a scam without calling it a scam -- at least in words that convey the same meaning?
I said it before and I'll say it again, you ought to chill out on this one.....
Troy
Actually I was referring to the highly "cash based" nature of the transactions occurring in these adult entertainment establishments. Which presents ample opportunity for the management to "skim" a little off the top.
BOP
I understood that (although it did take me a few minutes) and was, in turn, suggesting (pretty subtly) that there was a direct relationship between greater quantities of silicone in those clubs and the availability of cash for skimming.
{i]You mean the one's that drink "skim" milk?
Them too -- that is, of course, what is produced by silicone investments, isn't it? The ability to produce "skim" milk.
I was going to call it "skimable" milk, but decided to stick with your original word.
I have spent money in such clubs in the past (distantly and that's my story and I'm sticking to it), but I had not heard of a $20 charge for an ATM -- a little illusory desperation perhaps. Perhaps, ATMitis secondary to siliconitis.
Troy
You mean the one's that drink "skim" milk?
Them too -- that is, of course, what is produced by silicone investments, isn't it? The ability to produce "skim" milk.
Troy
As is "funkily". <g>
That makes it worth having mentioned it!
It was a long, crappy day -- that actually will end it with a smile.
Troy
~~~COMPX 10/31/2002~~~~~
Close: 1,326.73
1301 SagDec15
1305 WTMHouston
1334 shao
1345 Phil
1355 MM
Troy
You rang......
Actually to be more generic these days, it is just usually just referred to as defamation without regard to whether it is written or spoken.
As to the real question, let me just put it this way. I doubt anyone would take that "case" on contingency. But, bring in a large wheelbarrow full of dead presidents and you can (unfortunately) find someone to do almost anything -- including paying sanctions.
It may be defamation to call someone a name (depending on what it is and unless, of course, it is true), but it is not defamation (or at least very seldom so), IMO, to say, even falsely, that someone called you a name.
Troy
Are you sure that wasn't the porno stickma......
Rick's and the Men's Club were the first high end gentlemen's clubs in Houston. They were not your typical sleazy titty bars. They were frequented mostly by the suit and tie crowd and it was (and is for that matter) very common to see multiple six figure vehicles parked out front. They very tightly controlled some of the aspects of the business that got other clubs raided.
I was surprised to see the top officers are only 32 and 33. I will have to ask around and see what's up with that.
The money thrown at the ladies is not where the club makes its money. The club makes its money on the $20+ cover charge, the $10+ drinks, and a share of the $20+ table dance fee. They also serve food.
I suspect that this is one of those businesses that looks great on paper but the only folks who make money are those drawing a salary.
Troy
Another maybe it has been that way and I just had not noticed it before.....
In the preview window & (ampersands) and << and >> are showing up funkily. Since funkily is such a precise description.....
& shows up as "& amp ;" without the spaces
<< shows up as "& lt ; & lt ;" without the spaces.
>> shows up as "& gt ; & gt ;" without the spaces.
Troy
PS -- I am really disappointed that funkily is not in the speell cheching ductionary. <g>
Interesting... Rick's, the parent, trades under RICK. I used to follow it (the stock that is) regularly, although I never successfully pulled the trigger. In 1997, I tried to short 5000 shares at around $4, but could never find shares to borrow. I watched it a bit afterwards, but never seriously considered going long.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/r/rick.html
When the City of Houston passed its 3 feet rule, and a lot of other regulations like licensing of the girls, most folks thought that it was going to end up closing down most of the strip clubs. It has hurt their business, but has not closed them down as most expected -- primarily because they just do not have the manpower to effectively enforce the 3 foot rule.
It is interesting that it references Rick's as being in North Houston. It is in near west Houston, at least last time I checked.
As for the Brazoria land, it could very well be worth $1M. $3K an acre is not out of line and if it is good land, it could be far more.
Troy
we're gonna have to kill you.
or send you to jail, which might be worse.....
Troy
~~~COMPX 10/30/2002~~~~~
Prior Close: 1300.62
1264 timhyma
1280 WTMHouston
1305 Muell
1310 Phil
1322 shao
1327 MM
Troy
Nice WAG -- I seem to recall that around 1298 has won a couple of time lately.
Troy
Matt:
Brazoria County is just south of Houston. A lot depends on where the land is and what it is currently used for. It could be great land suitable for lots of things. It could be low lying land that floods every time there is a spring shower.
If you can get me a little better description of where it is in Brazoria (it is a huge county), I can probably get you some decent info on it.
Troy
Remember the one that Cheeky Kid from SI has that has Brad's, Jeff's, and Jill's signatures?
Seem to recall that Cheeky offered it for sale at one point. Don't recall if he ever sold it though.
I would have searched for the link over there, but without a search engine, it would be a monumental, if not impossible, task.
Troy
NO "Capital Gains" need to be reported to the IRS for income tax purposes!
Actually, that is seriously incorrect. Check it out a bit closer. Terminal shorts do not avoid capital gain taxation -- at least not legally.
Troy
If DA = dumb arse, then you are on the right track for figuring out SA.
Troy
<<only MHO.>>
Even though it is probably correct, shouldn't that be "only MSAO???"
Troy
Possible Bug....(not really a bug, now that I look at it closer -- just a convenience thing).
When viewing a PM, I attempted to edit the message number in the url in order to go (forward) to the page with that message number. It would not go to that page. Rather, it would only take me to the site's home page.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/default.asp
On looking closer at it, it appears that I was just editing the message number with read_pmsg.asp when I was trying to go to a public message for which I needed read_msg.asp. Now that I know to pull that p out, it won't be a big deal.
But, a convenience solution might be to insert a small window with a Go to Public Message Number in front of it. This would automatically change the "routine" and go to the public message number. (I have no clue what the correct lingo is to describe this process).
Troy
Nahh, just glad it is there. I must have been suffering from some temporary blindness (or failure-to-scroll-down-itis). Thanks, as always, for your responsiveness.
Troy
i'am serious
That was my point, but nevermind.....it's late.
Troy
Just sent a PM and noticed the message being replied to showed up at the bottom, as it does with public posts. Is this new or had I just missed it before?
Actually, it was something I had thought about mentioning the past couple days, so I sure hope that it is new and that I had not just not noticed it. I would have felt pretty silly suggesting it if it already existed.
Troy
a manner that i find extremely offensive, that i called a woman a cun* and i used the "Fuc* You" expression towards others.
Didn't you hear?
There once was a man from Nantucket...
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=557355
Lighten up and don't take everything so personally. If you have a gripe about a deleted post, make that pitch, but leave all this other carpola...well, just leave it.
Troy
Of course, one of the most famous limericks of all time is:
There once was a man from Nantucket.....
Out of concern for the TOU, the balance can be at:
http://www.jokes2go.com/poems/9719.html
There were actually 307 web sites containing the full limerick.
Troy
~~~COMPX 10/29/2002~~~~~
Prior Close: 1315.87
1294 WTMHouston
1298 timhyma
1325 Phil
1335 shao
Troy
Looks like some real fish bait working up a jail invite on the BS thread.
Troy
BUT, to lay those problems at his feet as though they were his creation, his responsibility, his doing - which, in essence, is the point you are stressing - is to burden him with miscues which were not of his making.
That is not only not "in essence" the point I was making, it is directly contrary to my express language.
Having given it some more thought, our differences on the responsibility issue may have more to do with our respective meanings and use of the word than the substance of our positions.
It seems that you and excel have used the term to mean or imply fault or blame for the condition. If that is the use, then I have agreed (or not disagreed) since the beginning. I have not and do not suggest that the current CEO is at fault for or to blame for prior mistakes. From my original post:
This is not to suggest that they have personally made the prior mistakes (obviously, they did not) but as leaders of the company they inherit the responsibility for them, IMO.
In the same sense, as CEO, he is, nonetheless, "responsible for" (at least until he changes or corrects it) the prior problems to the extent that he has accepted responsibility for the business -- and everything, good and bad, that came with it when he took over.
If the prior problems are not changed or corrected, you can sure bet that the CEO is responsible for them (and for not changing them) even though he is not at fault or to blame for creating them.
Some of the prior problems have clearly been changed so far. As to the rest, the performance ones, time will tell. Responsibility for either success or failure will properly be placed on those who are there now and not those who came before them.
Troy
Yep, goatsucker should only have one result.
Troy
Indeed, it is -- I had an extra space at the end.
Troy
Matt:
People get sued over automobile collisions because (at least in theory) they are at fault. Sometimes, there is a dispute over who is at fault, sometimes not. You keep using the word "accident" as though that somehow means not at fault. People are responsible for their accidents.
<<If I were in an accident, and was the "victim", I'd decline to sue. It's the sheer princple of the matter.>>
Very easy to say, much tougher in reality. Let me ask it this way first: someone racing someone else (for fun) runs a light, collides with your vehicle, by accident, and renders you totally paralyzed from the neck down. Your future medical bills alone will be in excess of $1M. You will never be able to earn a living and the physical pain in your head is agonizing and will likely never change. Let me throw in for the sake of the example that you are married and have three kids. You have no way to pay the future medical bills or to support yourself or your family for the rest of your life. The folks who were at fault in the accident have, say, $3M in available insurance coverage. Who should be financially responsible for the consequences of this accident? You would not sue to recover your damages, present and future, from the available insurance coverage?
Forget the technical aspects of this example and just assume it could happen. Let's say that IHub goes down one night and all of the servers and all backups are fried: your ISP comes to you and says oops, we made a mistake, someone had an accident and fried all of the servers and all backups -- sorry about that. I doubt, seriously, that you would simply walk away and say, "no big deal accidents happen, I don't expect you to make it right. I'll fund out of my pocket all of the expenses to make it right my self. Since accidents happen, I'll just pay for it, don't think twice about it."
More likely, you would be piping hot and would immediately expect them to immediately make it right (that is legal speak for pay or spend money to compensate you for your loss).
It is highly unlikely (nothing is impossible) that any insurance company would settle a claim for $250K if the person making the claim did not have pretty serious injuries. Insurance companies do not pay $250K for mere whiplash. Usually, the amount paid bears some resemblance to the nature of the incident and the injuries. Perhaps, in your hypothetical, the at fault driver had been intoxicated. Juries will award a lot more money when the at fault person was intoxicated. Perhaps, the person had a herniated disk or three or four. Something that might not be immediately or painfully obvious at the scene, but a very serious injury nonetheless. In all likelihood, if the insurance company settled, the at fault person never knew the full extent of the injuries of the other person.
Any of us can always come up with examples that do not make sense or seem, on their face, to be unfair or irrational. More often than not, they do not seem to make sense or seem to be unfair because all of the facts are not known (like some banishments we have seen), even though the actual facts clearly justify the result.
When one drives on the roads, one agrees explicitly and implicitly, for everyone else's protection, to abide by the rules and laws applicable to operation of a vehicle on the road -- it is a legal duty we all undertake. When one is involved in an automobile collision for which one is at fault, the fault occurs because one has not followed the rules and laws applicable to the use of the vehicle on the road. Indeed, in most "accidents" the at-fault person has committed a crime. When we, by accident, breach a legal duty imposed on us, i.e., not meaning to do so, we have been negligent. When our breach (our negligence) causes damages and harm to someone else, we are responsible for that damage and harm.
Of course, there can and frequently are varying opinions about whether one was at fault and the extent of damages and harm cause by the fault. This is why we have courts and juries -- to settle the disputes.
There is also a degree of deterrence involved in making people be financially responsible for their "accidents." It tends, although far from absolutely, to make them be more careful and have less accidents. Even if they don't learn, they get to pay more for the irresponsibility.
There are only two ways to make someone pay for harm they have caused someone else -- pay for the damages (civil) and go to jail (criminal).
It is ironic (and sad IMO) that many in our society are more willing to punish folks by putting them in jail than by making them pay directly to the victim. It is actually much easier today to put someone in jail for an accident than to collect money from them for it.
Nuff for now.....
Troy
<<The past baggage has nothing to do with my current performance.>>
I agree, but that was not my point. My only point was and remains that as CEO he has inherited the responsibility and baggage for prior mistakes. The company does not begin anew just because he is new. He may overcome the prior baggage with time, but it and the company's responsibility for it does not vanish just because they have a new CEO and some other new folks.
<<As I am starting new with a new business plan on how to solve the current and past problems.>>
That is right and my point -- you take the responsibility and baggage for the prior problems.
<<Where have they failed so far?>>
I did not say and do not claim they have, which is why your agreement with my basic premise (albeit alternatively) is far more reasonable. <g>
Troy
But it also shouldn't be put on Copper and Ketches shoulders like they are responsible for it.
I disagree. When they took their positions, they inherited the responsibility and all the baggage that came with the company -- at least until they produce differently. Of course, the ultimate question is whether they will produce differently and shed the prior baggage. Time will tell.
This is not to suggest that they have personally made the prior mistakes (obviously, they did not) but as leaders of the company they inherit the responsibility for them, IMO.
Troy
~~~COMPX 10/28/2002~~~~~
Prior Close: 1331.13
1302 timhyma
1311 WTMHouston
Troy
We are second on the Hot Boards list.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/hot.asp
And in fourth on the Top Boards List.
Edit -- we just went to first on the Hot Boards list.
Troy
3. Hasher5 hangs mistletoe from his trousers
a/k/a Monica bait.
Edit -- maybe that should be Bill bait.
Troy
This was all I know and had to say (forget touching) about breeders.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=555349
Troy
The only pro boner assistance I can offer had to do with Monica. Oops, wrong word again.
Now hasher, what do you mean 62 posts with no substance. Monica thought her viewpoint, political as it was, had a lot of substance -- at least at the end, or was that in the end, or maybe that was what was missing -- she should have found the soap in the shower.
As for any conspiracies, with the best Klink accent I can muster, I now nothing.....
Troy
The tag-line vote is underway.....
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/taglines.asp
Troy
<<while I've NEVER experienced a bad "Monica" (admittedly, some were better than others)>>
As temptressing as it is, I think it better to deflate this discussion prematurely. This has just been blown all out of proportion. No reason to get all gummed up on something this sticky. It is just too much to swallow. Speaking of which, I assume that:
<<to TASTING some horrible/gasoline-like mexican in-potable>>
you were referring to mescal, right?
Back to your original point, think sharp teeth.
Troy
Referring to conusewers of mescal as purists is like referring to a great BJ as a Monica -- it only seems good once the lights are out.
Troy
And look at his knowledge of French
Who needs this unintelligible French....
Personally, I'll stick with good 'ol Latin, of the pig variety.
Ancay Iway aysay orway ebay uckingnay utsfay erehay?
This should drive the speel chucker nuts.
Troy