User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #41  
Old 02-24-2007, 02:29 AM
Rev.Vassago's Avatar
Guest
Board Icon
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The other side of the coin
Posts: 9,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfhobo
So, I guess you didn't even "get" my reference to infallibility. :roll:
No, I just don't really care.

Quote:
Another wasted effort! Des regeur! (sp?)
Des rigeur
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-24-2007, 02:46 AM
golfhobo's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfhobo
So, I guess you didn't even "get" my reference to infallibility. :roll:
No, I just don't really care.

C'est domage!

Quote:
Another wasted effort! Des regeur! (sp?)
Des rigeur

Actually, we are both wrong! It's De rigueur. And it's the wrong idiom anyway! :lol: Just testing ya! And I'm a little rusty. I suppose I meant... C'est domage!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.

TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!

"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-24-2007, 03:34 AM
Rev.Vassago's Avatar
Guest
Board Icon
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The other side of the coin
Posts: 9,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfhobo
Des rigeur

Actually, we are both wrong! It's De rigueur. And it's the wrong idiom anyway! :lol: Just testing ya! And I'm a little rusty. I suppose I meant... C'est domage!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Google says different. :wink:
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-24-2007, 04:05 AM
jnk2001's Avatar
Board Regular
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lynden, WA
Posts: 446
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfhobo
Des rigeur

Actually, we are both wrong! It's. And it's the wrong idiom anyway! :lol: Just testing ya! And I'm a little rusty. I suppose I meant... C'est domage!

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Google says different. :wink:
De rigueur:

rigorously required by convention. Google
__________________
It's fun living in the gray areas of a black and white world!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-24-2007, 04:32 AM
Rev.Vassago's Avatar
Guest
Board Icon
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The other side of the coin
Posts: 9,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jnk2001
De rigueur:

rigorously required by convention. Google
I wasn't talking about the definition. I was talking about the spelling.

Type Des regeur into google, hit search, and see this:

Did you mean: Des rigeur
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-24-2007, 04:33 AM
Jackrabbit379's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wichita Falls,Tx
Posts: 7,197
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

hahaha. That's just like Yahoo search :P
__________________


http://watsonsysco.com/
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-24-2007, 05:46 AM
golfhobo's Avatar
Board Icon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: the 19th hole / NC
Posts: 9,647
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnk2001
De rigueur:

rigorously required by convention. Google
I wasn't talking about the definition. I was talking about the spelling.

Type Des regeur into google, hit search, and see this:

Did you mean: Des rigeur
See... that's your problem, Rev. You believe everything GOOGLE says! google is a mess. I can type almost ANY word, and it will ask me if I meant the same word with a different spelling, while GIVING me 112,00 hits for the way I typed it! :shock: :roll:

My Cassell's French/English dictionary (considered the best on the market) has NO spelling for rigueur as YOU and google spelled it. [or as I originally msspelled it!]

De Rigueur means "customarily" or "the usual." or "according to plan."

Which is the same as "just as I expected" From you. :roll:

But, in all fairness, I should have said C'est domage! I wonder what you would get if you googled THAT?

Il faut qu'on etudier la langue avant d'on essayer t'il parler! Moi? J'ai l'etudier plusque cinq annee!

Google THAT! :roll: :lol:

Give the Rev enough rope, and he will eventually HANG HIMSELF! But.... he'll never admit to being DEAD!! :lol: :lol:
__________________
Remember... friends are few and far between.

TRUCKIN' AIN'T FOR WUSSES!!!

"I am willing to admit that I was wrong." The Rev.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-24-2007, 12:48 PM
Rev.Vassago's Avatar
Guest
Board Icon
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The other side of the coin
Posts: 9,368
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfhobo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnk2001
De rigueur:

rigorously required by convention. Google
I wasn't talking about the definition. I was talking about the spelling.

Type Des regeur into google, hit search, and see this:

Did you mean: Des rigeur
See... that's your problem, Rev. You believe everything GOOGLE says! google is a mess. I can type almost ANY word, and it will ask me if I meant the same word with a different spelling, while GIVING me 112,00 hits for the way I typed it! :shock: :roll:

My Cassell's French/English dictionary (considered the best on the market) has NO spelling for rigueur as YOU and google spelled it. [or as I originally msspelled it!]

Which is why I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev.Vassago
Google says different.
:roll:

Quote:
De Rigueur means "customarily" or "the usual." or "according to plan."

Which is the same as "just as I expected" From you. :roll:

But, in all fairness, I should have said C'est domage! I wonder what you would get if you googled THAT?
Don't know, don't care.

Quote:
Il faut qu'on etudier la langue avant d'on essayer t'il parler! Moi? J'ai l'etudier plusque cinq annee!

Google THAT! :roll: :lol:
No thanks - I've got better things to do. Like pick my toes.

Quote:
Give the Rev enough rope, and he will eventually HANG HIMSELF! But.... he'll never admit to being DEAD!! :lol: :lol:
Still waiting for you to actually come with some rope, rather than the thread that you are using now. :lol:
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-02-2007, 09:53 AM
ben45750's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,863
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

3/1/2007 12:00 AM ET
Why Sirius is still doomed

The merger plan isn't going to rescue the satellite radio company or those who invested billions in it. Here's why the company is still in a death march.

The announcement of a proposed merger between Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI, news, msgs) and its archrival XM Satellite Radio (XMSR, news, msgs) was treated by most of the media this week as if were just another financial event to be studied through the prism of balance-sheet analysis and the federal regulatory approval process.

But the merger plan actually amounts to the death of a dream for investors who came to believe that shares of Sirius -- propelled skyward for a short time by the hiring of snarky talk show host Howard Stern -- would make them rich beyond compare.

For while the merger might ultimately save the company from total oblivion, it is unlikely to save investors from billions of dollars in losses incurred over the past several years or, perhaps more importantly, from a loss of faith in stock ownership.

Millions of people bought Sirius shares at $6 to $8 for their retirement accounts, and rode them down to $3.50, never losing faith in Stern. At this point, they need to face up to the fact that they're screwed. Stern made half a billion. They will make nothing. They can file SIRI stock certificates away under "S" for stupid. They blew it.
World domination
How did this happen? It's a weird deal, it really is. For reasons that are little understood, certain public companies occasionally acquire an iconic status that inflates their market value light-years beyond real value. Optimism overpowers common sense, and investors pile into shares of an unprofitable but sexy company which they believe will surprise skeptics and dominate the world.

Sirius earned that status around 2003, after it was rescued from bankruptcy by the skin of its teeth. Shares had plunged from the mid-$60s in 2000 to less than $1 by 2002. They then gently tripled to around $3 when its "radio in the sky" service launched nationwide. Investors figured a dozen years of fitful planning and marketing, and the expenditure of massive amounts of money, were finally about to pay off.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...illDoomed.aspx
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-03-2007, 02:33 PM
Fredog's Avatar
Senior Board Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 3,756
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ben45750
3/1/2007 12:00 AM ET
Why Sirius is still doomed

The merger plan isn't going to rescue the satellite radio company or those who invested billions in it. Here's why the company is still in a death march.

The announcement of a proposed merger between Sirius Satellite Radio (SIRI, news, msgs) and its archrival XM Satellite Radio (XMSR, news, msgs) was treated by most of the media this week as if were just another financial event to be studied through the prism of balance-sheet analysis and the federal regulatory approval process.

But the merger plan actually amounts to the death of a dream for investors who came to believe that shares of Sirius -- propelled skyward for a short time by the hiring of snarky talk show host Howard Stern -- would make them rich beyond compare.

For while the merger might ultimately save the company from total oblivion, it is unlikely to save investors from billions of dollars in losses incurred over the past several years or, perhaps more importantly, from a loss of faith in stock ownership.

Millions of people bought Sirius shares at $6 to $8 for their retirement accounts, and rode them down to $3.50, never losing faith in Stern. At this point, they need to face up to the fact that they're screwed. Stern made half a billion. They will make nothing. They can file SIRI stock certificates away under "S" for stupid. They blew it.
World domination
How did this happen? It's a weird deal, it really is. For reasons that are little understood, certain public companies occasionally acquire an iconic status that inflates their market value light-years beyond real value. Optimism overpowers common sense, and investors pile into shares of an unprofitable but sexy company which they believe will surprise skeptics and dominate the world.

Sirius earned that status around 2003, after it was rescued from bankruptcy by the skin of its teeth. Shares had plunged from the mid-$60s in 2000 to less than $1 by 2002. They then gently tripled to around $3 when its "radio in the sky" service launched nationwide. Investors figured a dozen years of fitful planning and marketing, and the expenditure of massive amounts of money, were finally about to pay off.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...ls/WhySiriusIs


tillDoomed.aspx

regular radio is fortunate that they stiil have listeners who are gullible to believe their rhetoric. they are the ones on a death slide.. whether the merger goes through or not, both siruis and xm will be just fine. clear channel on the other hand may just dissapear... good riddance..
Reply With Quote
Reply






Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:53 AM.


User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.