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.
24601: Why don't you disclose...
what this mysterious extra posting activity of yours consists of? You have another alias? You bring back the Phantom? You help your pal Go-Kite run the CAD-CAM forum? Am I supposed to guess at the stake you are willing to wager?
Forget it. The boys in Lee might well be able to post some revenues from another one of their never-ending stream of "development deals".
My position is this: They ain't sellin anything yet. Cause nobody's buyin this TCG pig-in-a-poke. By the time the world actually wants this thing, WAVX will have been outflanked by some company (possibly several) that actually have something resembling professional management. In lieu of the silver spoon Sprague children and that other guy (Gilder's former lawn boy, I think).
24601: Ordinarily the stakes are disclosed...
if we're going to stay with the poker analogy. You don't get to cover your stack with the tablecloth and demand the other person go all in. Best stick with bridge. Or checkers.
EAMONN: I think you are right...
There are two or more individuals named Mario Pino and the one WAVX is dealing with is not the one with the questionable reputation.
Bob: Matt may be a whore, but...
he's not a moron. I trust he's sharing the spoils of cult facilitation with you. The Wavoids are loyal to those who play their game and you all here at IHUB play it very cozy indeed. Anyway, cheers!
24601: Who is this Mario Pino...
individual? People on other boards consider him a scam artist, fraud, etc., etc., etc. Do you think the boys in Lee did any research on their new partner? Or was it just sort of Biz-style research? (You know, the sort of "research" where you supposedly vet someone and you end up entering into "development deals" with folks who really have no capacity to follow through?) Unfortunately, I have no time to follow up on this and, of course, ICBW.
Anyway, defend away counselor. Or will it be Silence Is Golden mode once again?
24601: Going all in...
is an apt metaphor. The problem is, you are the one playing with the short stack. You go all in with message board posting rights, I call the bet. I don't have to bet more than you do, counselor.
P.S. Best stick with the bridge analogies.
It was only a little over a year ago...
that Mr. Steven K. Sprague, CEO of WAVE Systems, took it upon himself--allegedly--to email a Wavoid and contradict remarks made by board members at the annual shareholders meeting. The more conservative individual speaking to the assembled shareholders had indicated that cash flow breakeven would not happen until 2005-2006. Mr. Sprague, in his alleged email, indicated that his expectations were cash flow break-even by Q4, 2004. Of course he was back-tracking at the time and went on to assign his own personal definition to break-even (which excluded all "ramp-up" costs). Even giving him the exclusion, that would mean $5 million in revenues per quarter. By Q4. Not Q1, 2005, not Q2, Q3, Q4, 2005. But by Q4, 2004.
We are about to learn what a dismal prognosticator Mr. Sprague is--for possibly the twentieth time. Nothing this person predicts ever happens. If he said the sun were going to rise in the east tomorrow, I would begin to worry.
There is no question that only a family connection keeps this person in his position. Every other company listed on NASDAQ would have canned a CEO with such squandered credibility. But then, there are no other companies on NASDAQ whose shareholders comprise a cult. Nor do any other public companies have otherwise respectable individuals defending a cult.
The single most logical question for Mr. Sprague in the upcoming CC would be: "With regard to your expectation of approximately $5 million in revenues for Q4, 2004, what in God's name were you thinking?
Of course, the question will never be asked. The cult has already forgiven the hyperbolic blather of its leader. It has already gone back to promoting its gospel of impending world dominion. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.
Interesting that you have so little faith...
in WAVX's CEO that you only estimate $75K for the quarter. Mr. Sprague's projection was more in terms of $5 million. Do you think he was merely insane at the moment? Or perhaps he was just pandering to the cult? You know, the Kool-Aid faction. The folks who've been screaming, "It's coming!" for about five-six years now.
At what point do you become embarrassed about defending this group of lunatics, John? Must people begin to laugh at you openly before you get it?
No thanks...
No reason why my blog ought to be a part of this bet. All our bets in the past have had to do with message board activity. A blog is clearly out of that realm.
Over/under $75K. Message boards only. Take it or leave it.
24601: Okay, I'll take the bet...
I say under $75K. You say over. Posting rights for 90 days. (Blog excluded.)
The sheer quantity of fluff PRs the boys in Lee have been churning out makes me think they've got essentially nada in current revenue. The chief's gotta have some pie-in-the-sky to throw out there to appease the cult. Which, of course, will work. It's worked for about five-six years now.
P.S. The Weby/Awk/Go-Kite estimates of $500K to $600K border on insanity. I have to wonder if they actually think that.
P.P.S. to Dig Space: I think you are banking on too much materializing in Q4 from that revenue that was deferred in Q3. There is considerable ignorance on the topic of deferred revenue. I know this has been explained ad infinitum, but one more time: The fact that cash is received in Q4--even all the cash--is immaterial to the recognition of the revenue. The revenue is recognized as it is earned. I suspect that may stretch over many quarters. Or it may be a rerun of the Biz-biz.
Thank you burpzilla...
I'm thinking we ought to follow LarryD's example and put up a table like his WAVX site has, only we can take the estimates of Steven's current weight. I say 260, but I'm guessing he's maybe 5'9" or so. That girth on a 6 footer would translate to 280. But, hey, ICBW.
Thank you Maggie. Today's entry...
at Nigel's blog: http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/02/steven_k_spragu.html
P.S. You are too kind.
A little Dodger talk today...
Lord Nigel's blog: http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/02/depodesta_find_.html
Yes, eamonn, that was me...
in a very short-lived visit to the Yahoo board. It took about ten minutes for me to remember why I stay away from the place. Unfortunately, with Raging Bull effectively useless, I have no message board venue left, other than the jailhouse here. I do have something to say about yaya's passing...
Nigel's blog: http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/
24601: Your brain cells are rapidly diminishing...
apparently. The truth is you are the one who issued the challenge for an over/under bet, not me. In the past we have had wide disparities in our expectations--yours being insanely optimistic. Since you now essentially agree with my fairly low expectations, I am not particularly interested in the wager.
I'm happy to see that you have unhooked from the Kool-Aid Katheter. Perhaps one day you will understand that defending the cult helped to perpetuate its abuses and helped prop up a management team that has distinguished itself mainly by its ineptitude and greed.
Steven's girth is a reflection of his natural tendency toward gluttony. Food, money, God-knows-what-all else. (I don't want to even think about it).
So, this will be three and out for me, counselor. Did I mention Nigel's blog? http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/
P.S. to eamonnshute: Dontcha think it's just a tad hypocritical for a bassonist to be callin somebody effete?
I'm not convinced...
that $75,000 reflects your true expectations. I think it's a ploy to improve your odds. Nice try though.
Nigel's latest entry:
http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/
24601: You accuse ME of being evasive?
You want to make a wager on Q4, 2004 WAVX revenue and yet are unwilling to say what you expect that number to be? I interpret your message to mean that you don't really expect revenues to be as low as $75K, but you say that in order to position yourself for a better bet.
Make a projection, counselor, and leave out the weasel words. Then we'll talk.
P.S. to Greg: I trust 24601 to live up to his word. It's true that the Wavoids have encouraged him not to (specifically Snackman), but he has always done so. Unlike the Yahoo crowd, I have never questioned his basic honesty.
P.P.S. Lord Nigel's latest blog entry:
http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/
Paulie: Some of your stuff is funny...
sometimes. Puerile. Hostile. Homophobic. Hateful. But occasionally mildly humorous. You have issues, Paulie. Perhaps that's stating the obvious. It surprises me that Matt is so willing to provide you a forum for your shtick, but I guess he'll do anything for a buck.
Anyway, cheers.
P.S. to 24601: Post a Q4, 2004 revenue estimate and we'll talk. No comment on the over/under 260 bet?
24601: I'll make you an over/under bet...
I'll put Steven at 260 pounds or more.
http://www.studiotwo.com/gallery/berkwire/1_27_05wireless_024
P.S. What is your Q4 revenue projection? How can we make a bet if you won't even hazard a guess?
dig space: I have no idea...
what you are talking about with "heterosexual leveraging of Lee" or my so-called "reckless sexism". If it's a joke, I just don't get it. If it's meant to be taken seriously, then I have to say you're out of your mind. I'm probably the least sexist male I know. Quote me a specific and we'll talk.
P.S. To equate my conversations with XAM with the rampant homophobia you find here at the Jailhouse is preposterously out of scale. Have you seen some of the stuff Paulie C posts here? Nothing I ever posted anywhere is remotely comparable.
P.S. to Eamonnshute: Nothing wrong with Nigel's blog. Heck, I even clicked on the url you posted in your message and went straight to it. Maybe something in Singapore is wacky. If that's where you still are.
reckless sexism? I don't think so...
dig. Why don't you dig one up and point it out? (That may be impossible given RB's state of disrepair.) Heck, most of my posts to XAM were in response to her razzing me for some thing or another. I don't think there's an ounce of sexism in them, dig space. Unless you're talking about the time I heckled her about bringing Steven cookies. And dig, she brought that up. I think you're off the mark here, old boy.
P.S. I also think your revenue projection for Q4 is, um, slightly delusional.
digspace: I must disagree...
with your assessment of who is "...the cheapest, dirtiest, most worthless whore to ever have graced any WAVX space." Buffet-guy is not that. The dumbest whore, perhaps, but not the dirtiest. That honor must go to Go-Kite/Surfsup.
There are too many examples to go into once again, but my favorite is the faux-journalist caper in which Go-Kite first objects to the Ellen Sheng article, then rants about her professionalism, then threatens to turn her in to the journalism police for ethical violations. In his rant, he mentions the journalistic kudos he himself has earned. Then, almost in the same breath, he authors an "article" for the prestigious "CAD-CAM FORUM" (a site he may or may not personally control), which is unabashed WAVX-touting. He does not identify himself as author. He does not disclose the fact that he has a material financial interest in the wares of the company he touts. This from the "journalist" that wanted to turn a real one in for so-called ethical lapses. Too Wavoidian for words. Except maybe this one: CULT.
P.S. And the Wavoids cheered the article. 24601 no doubt held his nose, but of course remained in Silence Is Golden mode. One mustn't antagonize one's fellow cultists.
24601: Snackman controls you...
it is obvious. Yes, you object from time to time to the most egregious Wavoid stunts, and for that I join digspace in giving you some credit. However, in the long run you will capitulate to the cult-master and return to writing private notes of protest to people who clearly file them in the circular file.
It's a cult John. You are a member. Why don't you emulate Barge and be proud of it?
GregS: Howard Roark's Dodgers...
is something you might be able to appreciate. I doubt you'll like it much, but here it is anyway...
http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/02/howard_roarks_d.html
Greg: Thanks for posting from Nigel's blog...
I'm not sure LarryD realized that's where those two pieces came from. Now if Matt would step up and let me out of here (to post at Larry's site, if not WAVX itself), it would benefit those folks who actually want to learn something--about WAVX, if nothing else.
Nigel's blog: http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/
Lord Nigel has a blog...
And here is the link: http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/
Thank you Magdelina. You are too kind.
eammon: Effete? Hardly...
Perhaps to you Philistines.
Nigel's blog: http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/my_weblog/
Lord Nigel has a blog...
and he plans on talking about the Wavoids at some length. Here is the link:
http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/
And thank you, Matt, for allowing me to promote Nigel's site here. I always said you were a scholar and a gentleman.
Magdelina: You are trading messages with one...
24601, who chose as a handle the prisoner number of that famous victim, Jean Valjean. Is there any significance to this choice? Of course there is. Obviously Jean/John feels persecuted. I suggested he discuss this with his analyst, but he denies having one and he refused the referral I tried to give him.
Nigel's blog:
http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/
24601: Too pathetic...
even for you. I said nothing about wagers proposed. The fact is you haven't won a bet we've actually made, have you? Last one we made resulted in your going on a rather lengthy hiatus as I recall. Next time you want to propose a wager, I suggest you make the stakes something I might actually want to win. Dinner with you, John, regardless of who pays for it, is not something I particularly covet. Especially since you'd likely have a dozen fellow cultists lurking in the bushes.
As to lies, we've already been down this road. You took about a month, searched four or five thousand messages of mine, and came up with one thing you tried to characterize as a lie, which was actually a rather obvious ruse designed to make a nuisance poster vanish. Which it did. Other than that, counselor, you can't find a lie. Cause there ain't any.
Ciao!
P.S.: Lord Nigel's blog - http://lord_nigel.typepad.com/
hasher: I don't aspire to NICE...
"Nice" doesn't work when you're dealing with cults. And trust me on this, WAVX is a cult stock. If you think otherwise, you haven't done your homework.
It's true, I confess, that I have an agenda with regard to WAVE Systems. Two words:
THE TRUTH!
And that concludes my posting for the day. Three and out.
dig space: I fear I have offended 24601...
by suggesting he defends the cult. I don't know, but from his last message to me, he seems to have lost whatever reasoning capacity he had left.
I post that Go-Kitesurf is a monumental hypocrite (citing the usual copious proof). I mention the sanctimony of Go-Kite in ripping a journalist's ethics and then authoring a not-for-attribution (meaning no byline) article in a forum that most believe he controls in which he touts WAVE systems, yet fails to disclose a material financial interest in said company. This coming from a person who was going to report Ellen Sheng for ethical lapses! I mean, you can't make this stuff up, it is so ridiculously hypocritical, shallow, self-serving, and essentially dishonest.
So what is 24601's response to my remark? He suggests that I am the sanctimonious blowhard! (Which may or may not be true, but it's beside the point.) A typical defense lawyer tactic. I point this out to him and he pretends not to understand. Or, I don't know, maybe he doesn't.
Second example of this defense lawyer mentality? Same tactic. I point out the utter insanity of the CEO going out of his way to contradict another board member's cash flow breakeven scenario (a more sane view, of course), point out that a $5 million per quarter revenue projection must have been based on some assumptions (lunatic though they may be). How does our attorney friend respond to that? The same tactic as before. He points out that my projections have not always been right, apparently in the belief that the CEO (with a CFO to assist in his financial modeling, not to mention being privy to any and all material facts that would go into a cash flow projection) should not be held to any different standard than an anonymous poster.
My only point: 24601 defends the company and the cult. It is ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
Anyway, All Things Gilder, I always say!
eamonn: I take it back then...
and apologize for attributing an idiotic revenue expectation to you. I never said you were an idiot, by the way. Kool-Aid addicted? Yes. A cultist? Yes. Lacking expertise in matters of finance? Yes. Tolerant of censors? Yes (but possibly a smidgeon less than your fellow cultists). On the other hand, you appear to have a sense of humor. Anyway, what exactly is your revenue projection? Or are you going to play it smart and keep it to yourself?
P.S. I notice our friend Jean Valjean is not making any revenue projections this quarter. Probably tired of losing wagers to me!
Hi Spin!
I knew I recognized that bit from somewhere! Could you put in a good word for me with Matt? I'm trying to get him to let me post at Larry D's site (which he is letting Magdelina do despite the fact she also is a freebie). I've promised to stay off Snackman's.
Ciao!
eamonn: Your Q4 2004 revenue projection...
is utterly idiotic. They'll be lucky to hit those numbers in Q4, 2005. In fact, if they get halfway to your guess, I'll eat this porkpie hat.
24601: You defend the indefensible...
as a matter of routine. Latest example? I point out the monumental hypocrisy of an individual first crying about an actual (paid) journalist's so-called unethical behavior then publishing an article in which he declines to identify himself or mention the fact that he has a significant financial interest in a product touted within.
Your response? Accuse the accuser. Oh, sure, you didn't explicitly defend the behavior. That would be almost impossible. So you revert to your defense attorney background and attack the accuser. Typical tactic. You can say it's not defending the indefensible. I say it is. Weakly, it's true, but the only defense you could mount.
Second example? I point out the utter insanity of SKS's cash flow breakeven claims and your response? That I have been wrong, too. Same tactic. Equally weak, but a defense nonetheless.
Face facts, John. You consort with cultists. You defend the cult.
Speaking of shame...
More than a year ago Mr. Steven Sprague, CEO of WAVE Systems, allegedly emailed one of the IHUBBERS with a statement contradicting remarks made in the SHM. The sitting chairman was quoted as saying cash flow breakeven was something to look forward to in 2005 or 2006. Mr. Sprague, in his alleged email, held to his break-even in 2004 position albeit under an entirely new and personal interpretation of what that term meant. However, even accepting the man's definition of cash flow breakeven (which excluded all "ramp-up costs"), cash flow breakeven would require revenues of $5 million per quarter.
What I would like to know is:
How in the hell did he come up with $5 million per quarter in revenues in Q4, 2004?
What in God's name was he thinking was going to happen? Come on. This is a legitimate question. What were the assumptions underlying that forecast?
24601: Of course I am...
calling someone else a sanctimonious blowhard, that is. As to the blowhard point, your "colleague" Go-Kite has demonstrated on at least five occasions that he will not hesitate to hold forth on topics on which he is almost completely ignorant. The sanctimony charge comes from his accusing a real journalist of ethical misconduct while almost simultaneously "authoring" an article for a site that he may or may not control under the by-line of "staff writer" in which he touts WAVE without disclosing he has a material financial interest in that company. I don't know, perhaps hypocritical blowhard would be more descriptive.
Anyway, the point remains. Your little cult will engage in these little charades without shame, John. And you, a lawyer, ought to be ashamed of yourself for defending this sort of thing. But then, I guess that's what lawyers get paid to do, isn't it? Defend the indefensible.
Matt: Time for my parole...
I been in the IHUB jailhouse for a year plus. Let me post on Larry D's WAVX site and I will stay off of Snackman's. Even the Wavoids will concede the fact that nobody has been righter than me when it comes to this company. (At least the honest ones will.)
I have stuff to say, Matt. I don't like saying it here because I don't like the tone of this place. The jailhouse, frankly, harbors some of the most disgusting homophobia I have ever come across. Actually, you ought to be ashamed of it. I suggest you clean it up or shut it down.
Matt: Time for my parole hearing...
I suggest you let me out of here on the condition that I not post at the WAVX cult-board but with permission (and the capacity) to post on Larry Dudash's alternative WAVX board. Three posts a day is okay by me.
Sincerely,
Howard
P.S. Otherwise go ahead and fry me. I don't care for the rampant homophobia that is encouraged here.