Discovery ends sponsorship at end of 2007



On Feb 15, 5:29 am, "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

(I noted):
> > r.b.r'.s Lord of the Flies has spoken (again).


> It really is amazing, isn't it?


Not any more, Bill <g>

> Tom just can't grasp the concept.


TK doesn't get *anything*. Not really.

I like the insurance co. commercial where one guy is buying a sports
car restoration biz to enjoy his retirement from another guy so *he*
can enjoy *his* retirement.

Kinda says it all, right there. --D-y
 
On Feb 9, 6:25 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Good scoop by velonews

>
> >http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/11627.0.html

>
> You give too much credit to VeloNews in this case. A dealer on our dealer
> e-list spotted it on USA-Today.com and called up VeloNews, who hadn't heard
> anything about it yet.
>
> --Mike--
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com


Well Mike, you seem sometimes to have an inside line with the boys at
Trek, what is their 'plan', post Discovery? Will there be a resurgence
of another team, mostly Discovery boys, in another 'kit'. Or will
there be no 'America's' team for 2008?
 
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It really is amazing, isn't it? Tom just can't grasp the concept.
> There've been tons of stories of people, especially recently, of
> people leaving major high paying careers to go do what they love. Lots
> of them seem to be landing here.


Yeah, I have a friend who was a Wall Street broker and who made his fortune
and then decided to give something back to the community. Thanks to
Clinton's dot-com bust he is now working a medium level job and worried
about getting laid off or fired. He had to sell all his properties and evict
his mother from the home he'd bought her and all.

The moral of the story is that people who are lucky enough to land in a good
job shouldn't be so quick to dump it and especially hesitant to burn their
bridges behind them.

> I think it's great, both for Steve and the shop, that Steve chose to
> work at a shop part time.


That's past tense. Steve is now up in Salt Lake City arguing on the internet
because he no longer has a life.
 
On Feb 15, 10:58 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > It really is amazing, isn't it? Tom just can't grasp the concept.
> > There've been tons of stories of people, especially recently, of
> > people leaving major high paying careers to go do what they love. Lots
> > of them seem to be landing here.

>
> Yeah, I have a friend who was a Wall Street broker and who made his fortune
> and then decided to give something back to the community. Thanks to
> Clinton's dot-com bust he is now working a medium level job and worried
> about getting laid off or fired. He had to sell all his properties and evict
> his mother from the home he'd bought her and all.
>
> The moral of the story is that people who are lucky enough to land in a good
> job shouldn't be so quick to dump it and especially hesitant to burn their
> bridges behind them.


....and there you have it folks, a tom kunich life lesson.

if you try to be a do-gooder you will lose your shirt and will have to
throw your mother out on the street.

i like how you blame low interest rates and easy credit which fueled
the dot-com speculation on clinton.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 15, 10:58 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> i like how you blame low interest rates and easy credit which fueled
> the dot-com speculation on clinton.


I see you're a real economist besides being politically aware.
 
On Feb 15, 11:21 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 15, 10:58 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> > i like how you blame low interest rates and easy credit which fueled
> > the dot-com speculation on clinton.

>
> I see you're a real economist besides being politically aware.



dumbass,

there's only two ways to lose your shirt. if you borrow money you
can't pay back or you speculate.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 15, 11:21 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 10:58 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>>
>> > i like how you blame low interest rates and easy credit which fueled
>> > the dot-com speculation on clinton.

>>
>> I see you're a real economist besides being politically aware.

>
> there's only two ways to lose your shirt. if you borrow money you
> can't pay back or you speculate.


And yet you imply that it was borrowing money that caused the dot-com bust
and not a complete lack of any standards for allowing companies without any
product nor sound strategy to go public.

Sorry but the Clinton administration HAS to take responsibility for allowing
such preposterous public offerings as "dog-walk.com" - a company whose
business plan was to walk the dogs of busy executives.
 
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:58:24 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>Yeah, I have a friend who was a Wall Street broker and who made his fortune
>and then decided to give something back to the community. Thanks to
>Clinton's dot-com bust he is now working a medium level job and worried
>about getting laid off or fired. He had to sell all his properties and evict
>his mother from the home he'd bought her and all.
>
>The moral of the story is that people who are lucky enough to land in a good
>job shouldn't be so quick to dump it and especially hesitant to burn their
>bridges behind them.


Based on your replies to ma and others, I thought the moral of the
story was that he was a loser to end up with a medium level job and no
'properties'. I assume, again based on your prior replies, that you
meant to say 'former friend'.

Or do you only dump them when they get jobs in bike shops?

Cripes, are your priorities screwed up. But then, that would figure,
wouldn't it?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:31:16 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>And yet you imply that it was borrowing money that caused the dot-com bust
>and not a complete lack of any standards for allowing companies without any
>product nor sound strategy to go public.
>
>Sorry but the Clinton administration HAS to take responsibility for allowing
>such preposterous public offerings as "dog-walk.com" - a company whose
>business plan was to walk the dogs of busy executives.


Another random connection of the dots on your part. I think what he
said was if your sad sack friend hadn't overextended himself, his
losses would have fallen within the scope of those 'properties'
themselves.

Historically speaking, the collapse of the dog-walk.com companies was
the second wave - the Tilt sign came on from the over-investment in
infrastructure for a demand that never came. Interestingly, it was the
lowered prices that came from the bankruptcy sales of line capacity
that largely began the Internet 2.0 wave. I can remember T-1s dropping
by more than 50% during a three month negotiating period - which
started when our partial T-1 carrier went down the tubes and stopped
service with about one minute notice. The company I was at went from
an occasional and necessary user of the Internet to making it part of
their business practices - almost entirely due to the dot com crash
and an eventual T-1 plus external lines for less than a slow asynch
line before.

In any event, an administration can have an immediate impact on
interest rates, but it has damn little to do with whether or not a
fairly disclosed offering is allowed to go public. And the more
speculative and further from either big board or NASDAQ it is, the
less likely the review has anything to do with the administration. The
only time you hear of administration level officials getting involved
is (with rare exceptions) established market impact corporations,
usually in mergers or major divestments.

I can still go public today with nothing more than a bad idea, a
decent investment banker to dot the i's and cross the t's, and fair
disclosure. The review isn't about whether the company will make money
- its about whether or not it fully complies with the registration
requirements of the 1933 act. As long as you fully disclose all
relationships and material weaknesses, the SEC is unlikely to stop it
(not a start up with no market impact issues). They look at it, send
it back and tell you that this i or that t is not complete or needs
detail and they eventually procedurally approve the registration. You
deal with a staff accountant at the SEC and the highest review is, at
most, one level up.

Now the exchanges are a different manner. After the SEC passes on the
registration, if all you have is a bad idea, you probably are going to
end up on an exchange run out of an old lead assay office. But the
exchanges are NOT the administration.

And, yeah, this is something I've done. No make believe or pretend
associations. I don't still do it because it was a long period of time
with damn near no holidays and having to show up on the few I had on
five minutes notice to explain things to some guy at, say, Alex Brown
that made three or four times what I did. Then he would nod his head
and say it was a reasonable position. He'd get several hundred an hour
back then for showing up and I was on salary. Not worth the money.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Feb 15, 11:31 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:21 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message

>
> >>news:[email protected]...

>
> >> > On Feb 15, 10:58 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> >> > i like how you blame low interest rates and easy credit which fueled
> >> > the dot-com speculation on clinton.

>
> >> I see you're a real economist besides being politically aware.

>
> > there's only two ways to lose your shirt. if you borrow money you
> > can't pay back or you speculate.

>
> And yet you imply that it was borrowing money that caused the dot-com bust
> and not a complete lack of any standards for allowing companies without any
> product nor sound strategy to go public.


dumbass,

a high interest keeps people's greed in check. if interest rates were
dropped now the exact same thing would happen.

> Sorry but the Clinton administration HAS to take responsibility for allowing
> such preposterous public offerings as "dog-walk.com" - a company whose
> business plan was to walk the dogs of busy executives.


that's not illegal, unless they filed fraudulent reports.

it's the govt's job to prevent fraud, not to be there to baby stupid
people or stifle new businesses.
 
On Feb 15, 9:31 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> And yet you imply that it was borrowing money that caused the dot-com bust
> and not a complete lack of any standards for allowing companies without any
> product nor sound strategy to go public.
>
> Sorry but the Clinton administration HAS to take responsibility for allowing
> such preposterous public offerings as "dog-walk.com" - a company whose
> business plan was to walk the dogs of busy executives.


Right, what we need is a stronger Federal government
with six layers of bureaucracy deciding which cronies'
preposterous dot-coms will be allowed to offer their
stock to the public. In Soviet Russia, dog walks YOU!

Nobody forced anyone to buy stock in dog-walk.com.
This argument is beginning to make me think Schwartz's
trolling algorithm is toying with us.

Ben
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Feb 15, 11:31 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry but the Clinton administration HAS to take responsibility for
>> allowing
>> such preposterous public offerings as "dog-walk.com" - a company whose
>> business plan was to walk the dogs of busy executives.

>
> that's not illegal, unless they filed fraudulent reports.


BS, the public doesn't see behind the curtain. It's up to the government to
regulate public offerings so that there is really SOME value behind the
offering. 2/3rds of the dot-com companies had no intrinsic value and it
wasn't apparently to those buying stock.

> it's the govt's job to prevent fraud, not to be there to baby stupid
> people or stifle new businesses.


You mean like Enron?
 
"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:58:24 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, I have a friend who was a Wall Street broker and who made his
>>fortune
>>and then decided to give something back to the community. Thanks to
>>Clinton's dot-com bust he is now working a medium level job and worried
>>about getting laid off or fired. He had to sell all his properties and
>>evict
>>his mother from the home he'd bought her and all.
>>
>>The moral of the story is that people who are lucky enough to land in a
>>good
>>job shouldn't be so quick to dump it and especially hesitant to burn their
>>bridges behind them.

>
> Based on your replies to ma and others, I thought the moral of the
> story was that he was a loser to end up with a medium level job and no
> 'properties'. I assume, again based on your prior replies, that you
> meant to say 'former friend'.
>
> Or do you only dump them when they get jobs in bike shops?
>
> Cripes, are your priorities screwed up. But then, that would figure,
> wouldn't it?


Do you suppose that anything a recumbent rider would say could be taken
seriously?
 
On Feb 15, 2:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Feb 15, 11:31 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>
> >> Sorry but the Clinton administration HAS to take responsibility for
> >> allowing
> >> such preposterous public offerings as "dog-walk.com" - a company whose
> >> business plan was to walk the dogs of busy executives.

>
> > that's not illegal, unless they filed fraudulent reports.

>
> BS, the public doesn't see behind the curtain. It's up to the government to
> regulate public offerings so that there is really SOME value behind the
> offering. 2/3rds of the dot-com companies had no intrinsic value and it
> wasn't apparently to those buying stock.
>
> > it's the govt's job to prevent fraud, not to be there to baby stupid
> > people or stifle new businesses.

>
> You mean like Enron?


dumbass,

correct, enron purposely deceived the public (that's why there was a
criminal investigation) and it led to a massive reform: the sarbanes-
oxley act.
 
Donald Munro wrote:
> Joe Cipale wrote:
>
>>>tommy, do us all a favor and STFU.

>
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>>For an ugly little fat guy you certainly talk big.

>
>
> Buddha posts to rbr ?
>


COmpared to the ignorant ass that responds to him.. yeah.

eunuch, yo aint breaking asweat over. Now.. back to my killfile, kuntich!
 
Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Joe Cipale <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>kunich will ALWAYS blame the govt for the misfortune that befalls those
>>who think like him. Otherwise 'they would not be temtped to exercise
>>such foolish actions if the govt hand not put the mechanism in place to
>>begin with...'.

>
>
> I need to offer a correction, Joe. Kunich will always blame a *Democratic* party
> led govt. etc...
>


I stand corrected Howrd. You are correct.

May I add, kuntich will always blame a DEMOCRATIC Govt for any of his
problems. One has to wonder why it took his (ex) so long to figure out
what kind of an ass-hat he really was.
 
Joe Cipale wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
>
>> Joe Cipale wrote:
>>
>>>> tommy, do us all a favor and STFU.

>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>
>>> For an ugly little fat guy you certainly talk big.

>>
>>
>>
>> Buddha posts to rbr ?
>>

>
> COmpared to the ignorant ass that responds to him.. yeah.
>
> eunuch, yo aint breaking asweat over. Now.. back to my killfile, kuntich!


damn... I need to get off the cold meds- what Imeant to write was:
Kuntich, you aint worth breaking a sweat over. You are nothing more than
a tool. An ignorant, loudmouth tool. And if you are talking ugly, fat
and little, I suggest you step back away from the mirror. Self-pity does
not wear well on you. Your UGLY mind, LITTLE opinions and FAT mouth are
what get you into trouble.

Now, back into my killfile, kuntich.
 
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:47:40 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>Do you suppose that anything a recumbent rider would say could be taken
>seriously?


Wow, considering its the Keunich, I'm impressed. OK, I laughed a
little bit, but it did bring back memories from 50 years ago.

Anyway, I can do this.

So's your old man. And your mother wears combat boots.

OK, your turn.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
 
On Feb 15, 10:58 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > It really is amazing, isn't it? Tom just can't grasp the concept.
> > There've been tons of stories of people, especially recently, of
> > people leaving major high paying careers to go do what they love. Lots
> > of them seem to be landing here.

>
> Yeah, I have a friend who was a Wall Street broker and who made his fortune
> and then decided to give something back to the community. Thanks to
> Clinton's dot-com bust he is now working a medium level job and worried
> about getting laid off or fired. He had to sell all his properties and evict
> his mother from the home he'd bought her and all.
>
> The moral of the story is that people who are lucky enough to land in a good
> job shouldn't be so quick to dump it and especially hesitant to burn their
> bridges behind them.
>
> > I think it's great, both for Steve and the shop, that Steve chose to
> > work at a shop part time.

>
> That's past tense. Steve is now up in Salt Lake City arguing on the internet
> because he no longer has a life.


Your definition of a "GOOD" job seems to be solely based on the
amount of cash generated. You and my old man would've gotten along
well.
Here's my definition of a "good job" and it does reflect my
priorities.:

Pays enough to cover what you really need without struggling too
much. If your significant other doesn't have health care, or you don't
have an SO, then it needs to include health care at a cost that leaves
you enough other money.
Safe, for the type of job, working conditions. Work you like or can
enjoy. Decent people and workplace attitude. If more than 40hrs./week
then not much more and voluntary. Time for family, friends, and other
activities. Pension plan is nice, but with the instability in jobs and
pensions you've really got to think about doing this yourself.
That's really about it.

Growing up farming and construction w/my old man was the worst, but
had great points too. I learned a shitload, learned what brutally hard
work is, and learned that, especially farming when your dirty, covered
in ****, smell terrible and are totally exhausted it just might have
been a fantastic day.
Up early, work with the animals, including feeding and caring for the
calves (love animals) is like seeing a bunch of friends. Play with the
dogs for a few minutes. Clean out the barn. Hand pump fuel into the
tractors. Spend the day in a nice warm sun riding up and down the
fields w/a small cooler of non-alcoholic beverages. Feed the animals
including throwing a bunch of hay bales. Maybe have to milk cows for
three hours, maybe not depending on who's around and who wants to do
what.
The point is that, while there was lots of hard work to be done the
schedule was flexible, almost all of it had good, enjoyable points,
and at the end of the day you could grab a quart of ice cold milk
right out of the bulk tank.
Worked at Kellog Brush as a mechanic. Did machine set-ups, repair,
and helped out the engineers in coming up with better stuff. Again
pretty dirty, pressure to make sure orders get done on time and
quality is met, but building good relationships with the machine
operators solved about half the "equipment" problems. Wander around,
do QCs, talk to people, fill in so the operators can grab an extra
break. Good job. Had a great party given by the Union head and the
operators at our local bar when I left.
The military is tons of stress and way too many hours when it's busy
and a piece of cake when it's not.
For putting up with it we got decent housing, medical care, a
reasonable wage to live on, travel, special events and discounts.
Chances to go to school, do sporting events, volunteer with the
theater group, at the library, and the gym. Fly all over, meet all
kinds of different people.
Great job except for the BS from the Pentagon and officers who want
to make it by kissing ass; Not doing the job.
Did a buch of temp labor **** at times as a fill in. Usually were
pretty good. Nobody expects much so if you have half a brain and
actually do some work things seem to go well. If it doesn't you move
on. It's temp so no big loss.
Now I'm working for myself and making about half, or less than I
could be. The other side is I get to work around the injuries, only
bid jobs that look decent, adjust my schedule to the kids and family.
Go to different places and do slightly different things.
Gotta love it.
I've been lucky to have learned a large similar skill set that has
always let me be able to find a job that paid at least something.
Guess IMO it's pretty simple. Most jobs are what you make them and
almost anything is better than hand shoveling or working a "mud
sucker" pump hose, in a trench for a water main break, up to your ass
in icy water in March, or December.
Life's WAY too short to be bitter and ****** off all the time. If the
only thing that gets you off is the most cash in the least amount of
time, don't call me, I'll be riding or fishing with my kids.
Bill C