Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
http
/news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_hi_te/tivo_comcast_18
http
/news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_hi_te/tivo_comcast_18
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:45:26 -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
> is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
> actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
> maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
> quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
Because Stock investors are not necessarily economists?
How do you justify _anything_ the stock market does?
--
Lenroc
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:45:26 -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
> is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
> actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
> maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
> quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
Because Stock investors are not necessarily economists?
How do you justify _anything_ the stock market does?
--
Lenroc
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
> But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
> is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
> actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
> maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
> quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
You probably can't. Markets don't work rationally in the short term
(and perhaps not even in the long term), there's a lot of emotion involved.
I'd say there's two factors contributing here. One, Tivo is a *loved*
company with loyal followers not based on financials. Fans often see
owning stock as one method of supporting a company they like (which
isn't necessarily wrong). Any sign of good news, particularly after a
long period of bad or no news will likely cause many of those fans to
purchase stock, regardless of valuation.
Two, after such a long period of bad or no news, Tivo's stock was
probably depressed below what it really should have been. They have a
quality product (which has been proven difficult to duplicate reliably),
a very loyal customer base, and very active and forward thinking
development. Despite all that, it was difficult to justify the stock as
a buy because there was nothing to show for a relatively long time
except bad news (at least financially, TTG was something good to talk
about at least). Now that there's something else to focus on, nobody
has to make excuses.
Also, remember that the stock market typically buys on the rumor and
sells on the news. Since there wasn't even a *rumor* about this
(AFAIK), the market reacted swiftly. Later on, even if the financials
look as good as expected, the price will probably still drop some
because the emotion will be gone.
Randy S.
> But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
> is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
> actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
> maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
> quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
You probably can't. Markets don't work rationally in the short term
(and perhaps not even in the long term), there's a lot of emotion involved.
I'd say there's two factors contributing here. One, Tivo is a *loved*
company with loyal followers not based on financials. Fans often see
owning stock as one method of supporting a company they like (which
isn't necessarily wrong). Any sign of good news, particularly after a
long period of bad or no news will likely cause many of those fans to
purchase stock, regardless of valuation.
Two, after such a long period of bad or no news, Tivo's stock was
probably depressed below what it really should have been. They have a
quality product (which has been proven difficult to duplicate reliably),
a very loyal customer base, and very active and forward thinking
development. Despite all that, it was difficult to justify the stock as
a buy because there was nothing to show for a relatively long time
except bad news (at least financially, TTG was something good to talk
about at least). Now that there's something else to focus on, nobody
has to make excuses.
Also, remember that the stock market typically buys on the rumor and
sells on the news. Since there wasn't even a *rumor* about this
(AFAIK), the market reacted swiftly. Later on, even if the financials
look as good as expected, the price will probably still drop some
because the emotion will be gone.
Randy S.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
In article <mBJZd.3298$ZE5.1581@fed1read03>,
Lenroc <lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:45:26 -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>
> > But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
> > is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
> > actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
> > maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
> > quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
>
> Because Stock investors are not necessarily economists?
>
> How do you justify _anything_ the stock market does?
Wall Street often over reacts to things.
In article <mBJZd.3298$ZE5.1581@fed1read03>,
Lenroc <lenroc@NOSPAMFORYOU.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:45:26 -0500, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>
> > But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
> > is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
> > actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
> > maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
> > quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
>
> Because Stock investors are not necessarily economists?
>
> How do you justify _anything_ the stock market does?
Wall Street often over reacts to things.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
> So does this change your prediction of the demise of Tivo? As I recall you
> indicated in previous post "I'm on record as saying that Tivo will no longer
> exist in it's current form 6 months from the time Directv starts marketing
> their own DVR's." Given that Comcast has about 21.5M Basic Cable subscribers
> and about 8.6M Digital Cable subscribers compared to DTV's 11M I'd say that
> Tivo is going to get a pretty large market share if this deal actually goes
> through.
He'll just ignore this post as usual. He doesn't anwer posts where he
can't pretend he was right in the first place.
Randy S.
> So does this change your prediction of the demise of Tivo? As I recall you
> indicated in previous post "I'm on record as saying that Tivo will no longer
> exist in it's current form 6 months from the time Directv starts marketing
> their own DVR's." Given that Comcast has about 21.5M Basic Cable subscribers
> and about 8.6M Digital Cable subscribers compared to DTV's 11M I'd say that
> Tivo is going to get a pretty large market share if this deal actually goes
> through.
He'll just ignore this post as usual. He doesn't anwer posts where he
can't pretend he was right in the first place.
Randy S.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
On 15 Mar 2005 17:45:26 -0500, "Patrick J. LoPresti"
<patl@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>Here is what I don't understand. Tivo's stock shot up 75% today,
>giving them a market cap of $540 million.
>
>But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
>is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
>actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
>maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
>quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
Where have you been for the last 5 years? The stock market plays by different
rules ever since all the online trading companies made it easy for even a
monkey to buy stocks.
In today's world, you most certainly do buy on the rumor or anything else that
has a positive swing to it.
The old "tried and true" methods don't apply for companies like this anymore.
On 15 Mar 2005 17:45:26 -0500, "Patrick J. LoPresti"
<patl@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>Here is what I don't understand. Tivo's stock shot up 75% today,
>giving them a market cap of $540 million.
>
>But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
>is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
>actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
>maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
>quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
Where have you been for the last 5 years? The stock market plays by different
rules ever since all the online trading companies made it easy for even a
monkey to buy stocks.
In today's world, you most certainly do buy on the rumor or anything else that
has a positive swing to it.
The old "tried and true" methods don't apply for companies like this anymore.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:08:57 -0500, "Randy S."
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So does this change your prediction of the demise of Tivo? As I recall you
>> indicated in previous post "I'm on record as saying that Tivo will no longer
>> exist in it's current form 6 months from the time Directv starts marketing
>> their own DVR's." Given that Comcast has about 21.5M Basic Cable subscribers
>> and about 8.6M Digital Cable subscribers compared to DTV's 11M I'd say that
>> Tivo is going to get a pretty large market share if this deal actually goes
>> through.
>
>He'll just ignore this post as usual. He doesn't anwer posts where he
>can't pretend he was right in the first place.
>
>Randy S.
Oh, I ignored it all right. Except for my post yesterday
Titled Sean Was proven right.
Geeze what dolts you are.
As I said in the initial post months ago about Mike Ramsay ...
Maybe he can now devote all his time to begging cable companies
to return his phone calls.
That's the only hope for this company, otherwise it's ...
TIVO - Dead Company Walking
So, what happens. Ramsay does what I said he should.
He begged the cable co's to come back to the table.
It remains to be seen if all this is is a replacement of 1 bad deal
(directv) with another.
Sean
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:08:57 -0500, "Randy S."
<rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So does this change your prediction of the demise of Tivo? As I recall you
>> indicated in previous post "I'm on record as saying that Tivo will no longer
>> exist in it's current form 6 months from the time Directv starts marketing
>> their own DVR's." Given that Comcast has about 21.5M Basic Cable subscribers
>> and about 8.6M Digital Cable subscribers compared to DTV's 11M I'd say that
>> Tivo is going to get a pretty large market share if this deal actually goes
>> through.
>
>He'll just ignore this post as usual. He doesn't anwer posts where he
>can't pretend he was right in the first place.
>
>Randy S.
Oh, I ignored it all right. Except for my post yesterday
Titled Sean Was proven right.
Geeze what dolts you are.
As I said in the initial post months ago about Mike Ramsay ...
Maybe he can now devote all his time to begging cable companies
to return his phone calls.
That's the only hope for this company, otherwise it's ...
TIVO - Dead Company Walking
So, what happens. Ramsay does what I said he should.
He begged the cable co's to come back to the table.
It remains to be seen if all this is is a replacement of 1 bad deal
(directv) with another.
Sean
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
>>He'll just ignore this post as usual. He doesn't anwer posts where he
>>can't pretend he was right in the first place.
>>
>>Randy S.
>
>
>
> Oh, I ignored it all right. Except for my post yesterday
> Titled Sean Was proven right.
>
> Geeze what dolts you are.
>
> As I said in the initial post months ago about Mike Ramsay ...
>
> Maybe he can now devote all his time to begging cable companies
> to return his phone calls.
>
> That's the only hope for this company, otherwise it's ...
>
> TIVO - Dead Company Walking
>
> So, what happens. Ramsay does what I said he should.
>
> He begged the cable co's to come back to the table.
>
> It remains to be seen if all this is is a replacement of 1 bad deal
> (directv) with another.
>
> Sean
See? He completely ignored the relevent portion of where he was
completely wrong. The more he refuses to acknowledge reality, the
funnier it is! ;-)
Randy S.
>>He'll just ignore this post as usual. He doesn't anwer posts where he
>>can't pretend he was right in the first place.
>>
>>Randy S.
>
>
>
> Oh, I ignored it all right. Except for my post yesterday
> Titled Sean Was proven right.
>
> Geeze what dolts you are.
>
> As I said in the initial post months ago about Mike Ramsay ...
>
> Maybe he can now devote all his time to begging cable companies
> to return his phone calls.
>
> That's the only hope for this company, otherwise it's ...
>
> TIVO - Dead Company Walking
>
> So, what happens. Ramsay does what I said he should.
>
> He begged the cable co's to come back to the table.
>
> It remains to be seen if all this is is a replacement of 1 bad deal
> (directv) with another.
>
> Sean
See? He completely ignored the relevent portion of where he was
completely wrong. The more he refuses to acknowledge reality, the
funnier it is! ;-)
Randy S.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
> After bitching about Tivo not offering a Cable HD product I then made
> the prediction that without one, Tivo was a dead company walking.
Sean, please produce one verifiable post where you said this. You never
made any exception along the lines of "unless they get a Cable product".
Until you can produce this your protestions of "I was 100% correct" is
complete bullshit.
Randy S.
> After bitching about Tivo not offering a Cable HD product I then made
> the prediction that without one, Tivo was a dead company walking.
Sean, please produce one verifiable post where you said this. You never
made any exception along the lines of "unless they get a Cable product".
Until you can produce this your protestions of "I was 100% correct" is
complete bullshit.
Randy S.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-1BF3E2.06091716032005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <73QZd.12110$cN6.6975@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
SNIP
>
> DirecTv is above 13 million by now.
In a check of the DTV annual report, 3-1-05, they claim 13.9M US and 1.6M
Latin America. Still only about half that of Comcast. I guess reports of
Tivo's demise were premature.
TC
"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-1BF3E2.06091716032005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <73QZd.12110$cN6.6975@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
SNIP
>
> DirecTv is above 13 million by now.
In a check of the DTV annual report, 3-1-05, they claim 13.9M US and 1.6M
Latin America. Still only about half that of Comcast. I guess reports of
Tivo's demise were premature.
TC
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:32:43 -0500, "Randy S."
<rswittno@spamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>He'll just ignore this post as usual. He doesn't anwer posts where he
>>>can't pretend he was right in the first place.
>>>
>>>Randy S.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, I ignored it all right. Except for my post yesterday
>> Titled Sean Was proven right.
>>
>> Geeze what dolts you are.
>>
>> As I said in the initial post months ago about Mike Ramsay ...
>>
>> Maybe he can now devote all his time to begging cable companies
>> to return his phone calls.
>>
>> That's the only hope for this company, otherwise it's ...
>>
>> TIVO - Dead Company Walking
>>
>> So, what happens. Ramsay does what I said he should.
>>
>> He begged the cable co's to come back to the table.
>>
>> It remains to be seen if all this is is a replacement of 1 bad deal
>> (directv) with another.
>>
>> Sean
>
>See? He completely ignored the relevent portion of where he was
>completely wrong. The more he refuses to acknowledge reality, the
>funnier it is! ;-)
>
>Randy S.
Apparently what I ignored was so "relevant" that you snipped it out of
your post.
I'm beginning to think that you are doing this on purpose. Noone is
that dumb.
Sean
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:32:43 -0500, "Randy S."
<rswittno@spamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>He'll just ignore this post as usual. He doesn't anwer posts where he
>>>can't pretend he was right in the first place.
>>>
>>>Randy S.
>>
>>
>>
>> Oh, I ignored it all right. Except for my post yesterday
>> Titled Sean Was proven right.
>>
>> Geeze what dolts you are.
>>
>> As I said in the initial post months ago about Mike Ramsay ...
>>
>> Maybe he can now devote all his time to begging cable companies
>> to return his phone calls.
>>
>> That's the only hope for this company, otherwise it's ...
>>
>> TIVO - Dead Company Walking
>>
>> So, what happens. Ramsay does what I said he should.
>>
>> He begged the cable co's to come back to the table.
>>
>> It remains to be seen if all this is is a replacement of 1 bad deal
>> (directv) with another.
>>
>> Sean
>
>See? He completely ignored the relevent portion of where he was
>completely wrong. The more he refuses to acknowledge reality, the
>funnier it is! ;-)
>
>Randy S.
Apparently what I ignored was so "relevant" that you snipped it out of
your post.
I'm beginning to think that you are doing this on purpose. Noone is
that dumb.
Sean
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> writes:
> > But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
> > is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
> > actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
> > maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
> > quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
>
> You probably can't. Markets don't work rationally in the short term
> (and perhaps not even in the long term), there's a lot of emotion
> involved.
My question was partly rhetorical
. Although I was kind of
wondering if anybody would correct me about the numbers being secret.
> I'd say there's two factors contributing here. One, Tivo is a
> *loved* company with loyal followers not based on financials. Fans
> often see owning stock as one method of supporting a company they
> like (which isn't necessarily wrong). Any sign of good news,
> particularly after a long period of bad or no news will likely cause
> many of those fans to purchase stock, regardless of valuation.
>
> Two, after such a long period of bad or no news, Tivo's stock was
> probably depressed below what it really should have been.
Well, the above logic suggests those same fans (e.g., myself) were
also holding their Tivo stock irrationally long, artifically INFLATING
the price.
I hate to say it, but prior to this deal, Sean kind of had a point.
Tivo really needed this. Now the company will almost surely survive,
although what their revenues will be is anybody's guess. Buying or
even holding the stock now is sheer speculation.
Not that I'm planning to sell. Who knows? Maybe this deal will
strengthen the (already strong) Tivo brand to the point that other
suitors will come knocking.
> Also, remember that the stock market typically buys on the rumor and
> sells on the news.
Yeah, people are pretty stupid.
- Pat
"Randy S." <rswittNO@SPAMgmail.com> writes:
> > But the actual NUMBERS from the Comcast deal are still secret. There
> > is zero public information about how much revenue this deal will
> > actually represent for Tivo. Maybe it's $1 per subscriber per month;
> > maybe it's 20 cents per year. We don't know. So how do you justify a
> > quarter billion dollar jump in valuation?
>
> You probably can't. Markets don't work rationally in the short term
> (and perhaps not even in the long term), there's a lot of emotion
> involved.
My question was partly rhetorical
. Although I was kind ofwondering if anybody would correct me about the numbers being secret.
> I'd say there's two factors contributing here. One, Tivo is a
> *loved* company with loyal followers not based on financials. Fans
> often see owning stock as one method of supporting a company they
> like (which isn't necessarily wrong). Any sign of good news,
> particularly after a long period of bad or no news will likely cause
> many of those fans to purchase stock, regardless of valuation.
>
> Two, after such a long period of bad or no news, Tivo's stock was
> probably depressed below what it really should have been.
Well, the above logic suggests those same fans (e.g., myself) were
also holding their Tivo stock irrationally long, artifically INFLATING
the price.
I hate to say it, but prior to this deal, Sean kind of had a point.
Tivo really needed this. Now the company will almost surely survive,
although what their revenues will be is anybody's guess. Buying or
even holding the stock now is sheer speculation.
Not that I'm planning to sell. Who knows? Maybe this deal will
strengthen the (already strong) Tivo brand to the point that other
suitors will come knocking.
> Also, remember that the stock market typically buys on the rumor and
> sells on the news.
Yeah, people are pretty stupid.
- Pat
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
> My question was partly rhetorical. Although I was kind of
> wondering if anybody would correct me about the numbers being secret.
Sorry, tone is often hard to express in a news post. But everything
I've read says that the numbers of the deal are undisclosed, meaning
anything concerning expected revenue/profits is blatant and
unsubstantiated speculation.
>>I'd say there's two factors contributing here. One, Tivo is a
>>*loved* company with loyal followers not based on financials. Fans
>>often see owning stock as one method of supporting a company they
>>like (which isn't necessarily wrong). Any sign of good news,
>>particularly after a long period of bad or no news will likely cause
>>many of those fans to purchase stock, regardless of valuation.
>>
>>Two, after such a long period of bad or no news, Tivo's stock was
>>probably depressed below what it really should have been.
>
>
> Well, the above logic suggests those same fans (e.g., myself) were
> also holding their Tivo stock irrationally long, artifically INFLATING
> the price.
I'd say there was some of that too. It's all just pure speculation on
my part. But it may be that there are now many *more* Tivo fans then
there were, so a much larger audience was just inspired to buy stock.
> I hate to say it, but prior to this deal, Sean kind of had a point.
> Tivo really needed this. Now the company will almost surely survive,
> although what their revenues will be is anybody's guess. Buying or
> even holding the stock now is sheer speculation.
First of all, "Sean" was far from the only person who thought Tivo would
be really helped by having a Cable deal. I've said that many times, as
have many others. Giving credit to Sean for that is undeserved. What
differentiated Sean's view was that he said that without one Tivo could
not survive. Most of us disagreed with that.
But buying or holding Tivo stock now is strictly a gamble until the deal
numbers come out, there's no arguing with that. What may be worth
arguing is how *good* of a gamble it is ;-).
>
> Not that I'm planning to sell. Who knows? Maybe this deal will
> strengthen the (already strong) Tivo brand to the point that other
> suitors will come knocking.
See, you think it's a good gamble! ;-). I hope it pays off. It did for
Google IPO buyers!
>>Also, remember that the stock market typically buys on the rumor and
>>sells on the news.
>
> Yeah, people are pretty stupid.
Well, stupidity is part of it, certainly. But part of investing is
guessing (hopefully an educated guess!) what the market will do *before*
other people make the same decision. In such an environment buying on
rumors is naturally encouraged. That doesn't mean it's successful.
Randy S.
> My question was partly rhetorical
. Although I was kind of> wondering if anybody would correct me about the numbers being secret.
Sorry, tone is often hard to express in a news post. But everything
I've read says that the numbers of the deal are undisclosed, meaning
anything concerning expected revenue/profits is blatant and
unsubstantiated speculation.
>>I'd say there's two factors contributing here. One, Tivo is a
>>*loved* company with loyal followers not based on financials. Fans
>>often see owning stock as one method of supporting a company they
>>like (which isn't necessarily wrong). Any sign of good news,
>>particularly after a long period of bad or no news will likely cause
>>many of those fans to purchase stock, regardless of valuation.
>>
>>Two, after such a long period of bad or no news, Tivo's stock was
>>probably depressed below what it really should have been.
>
>
> Well, the above logic suggests those same fans (e.g., myself) were
> also holding their Tivo stock irrationally long, artifically INFLATING
> the price.
I'd say there was some of that too. It's all just pure speculation on
my part. But it may be that there are now many *more* Tivo fans then
there were, so a much larger audience was just inspired to buy stock.
> I hate to say it, but prior to this deal, Sean kind of had a point.
> Tivo really needed this. Now the company will almost surely survive,
> although what their revenues will be is anybody's guess. Buying or
> even holding the stock now is sheer speculation.
First of all, "Sean" was far from the only person who thought Tivo would
be really helped by having a Cable deal. I've said that many times, as
have many others. Giving credit to Sean for that is undeserved. What
differentiated Sean's view was that he said that without one Tivo could
not survive. Most of us disagreed with that.
But buying or holding Tivo stock now is strictly a gamble until the deal
numbers come out, there's no arguing with that. What may be worth
arguing is how *good* of a gamble it is ;-).
>
> Not that I'm planning to sell. Who knows? Maybe this deal will
> strengthen the (already strong) Tivo brand to the point that other
> suitors will come knocking.
See, you think it's a good gamble! ;-). I hope it pays off. It did for
Google IPO buyers!
>>Also, remember that the stock market typically buys on the rumor and
>>sells on the news.
>
> Yeah, people are pretty stupid.
Well, stupidity is part of it, certainly. But part of investing is
guessing (hopefully an educated guess!) what the market will do *before*
other people make the same decision. In such an environment buying on
rumors is naturally encouraged. That doesn't mean it's successful.
Randy S.
Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.tivo (More info?)
* Sean Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> Apparently what I ignored was so "relevant" that you snipped it
> out of your post.
>
> I'm beginning to think that you are doing this on purpose. Noone
> is that dumb.
Apparently you are. If you wanted to answer it, you know where to find
the post.
--
David
* Sean Wrote in alt.video.ptv.tivo:
> Apparently what I ignored was so "relevant" that you snipped it
> out of your post.
>
> I'm beginning to think that you are doing this on purpose. Noone
> is that dumb.
Apparently you are. If you wanted to answer it, you know where to find
the post.
--
David
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion What new phone technology trends should we keep an eye on?- Started by Vandna Jadhav
- Replies: 2
-
Question What if the EU forced laptop makers to allow upgradeable ram and storage?
- Started by kionbo2
- Replies: 2
-
Question Best laptops for a student going to high school
- Started by joninte2
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question Which games are you playing right now please suggest me some- Started by happyclub
- Replies: 8
-
Question Why are windows laptop cameras so bad compared to other's?
- Started by bakriwa5
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter