Pat, Re: " In Post #1752 you say:
"Reading the press on the competition you provided(thank-you), I'd have to say it is not at all clear that this competition does any more than scratch the surface of what
cherrypicker provides...and cherrypicker is already beyond the initial development stage, it's in use and helping to cause Tern's revenues to soar, and their pro-forma profits to become .04 last Q vs an expected pro-forma loss of $.19. Value of SOME kind is causing this to happen, that's for pretty sure I'd say."
Does that or does that not indicate Imedia was the cause of Terayon's coming in at plus 04. instead of an expected minus .19?"
No, it does not. "Helping" is the operative word, applying in this case, to both "revenues" and "profits." The term "Helping" is non-specific as to extent. Therefore I covered a wide range of possible positive effects both tiny, large, and in-between. Therefore, my statement was completely non-specific as to the extent Cerrypicker added to revenues/earnings, and only indicated that it was additive to each.
Re: "You then proceed to say "I did NOT deny in any shape or form that Imedia saved the day."
That remains true, and consistent with all my statements in response to you.
Re: "Here, again, is your response in post #1757:
"I think you've mistaken my meaning here...I'm not breaking out cherrypicker...I'm talking about TERN overall(I got the .19 estimate from Gilders letter, though I suspect analysts estimates were available elsewhere). Nothing new here. Unless otherwise shown, I have to presume the numbers I reported do nothing to break Cherrypicker out as you suggest."
Is that or is that not a denial? If this is becoming Kafkesque, it's because your story changes every time you post."
It is a denial of your interpretation. Beyond that, it is an accurate depiction of the logical limit on what anyone could draw from my original post, as per my above comments. In reporting the numbers, and indicating that Cherrypicker had a positive impact on those numbers, I made no claims for the extent of any positive impact, but instead, only that the impact was positive- a possibility I can consistently say again, I've NEVER denied.
Re: "Your last post claims:
You are quite absurd here...attributing to me words and meanings all reasonable people can plainly see I never offered, in both instances."
I stand by that 100%.
Re: "Now, since you 1) did claim Imedia saved the day, and 2) denied that Imedia saved the day, and 3) denied that you denied Imedia saved the day, I ask you, who's allegations are disgusting?"
1) I did not claim Imedia saved the day, ever.
2) I did not deny Imedia saved the day, ever.
3) Yes, I denied that I denied Imedia saved the day- which is quite accurate and fitting with my responses to both 1 & 2 above.
Apparently, you somehow ignored my use of the term "helping," and now persist in thinking my original post indicated Imedia was the sole cause of the earnings gains reported. I NEVER broke out how much Imedia added to to earnings...I just said it added to them. But suddenly feeling I did not recall for sure, I took that simple statement back...and I did so in such a way that I've consistently refused to say one way or the other whether Imedia helps or hurts earnings, ever since.
Summing up(YE,HA!hehehe), by my words you cannot conclude that I never said anything more than that Imedia was PARTLY additive to TERNs earnings/revenues...and I took THAT back, but WITHOUT taking a further position on the matter one way or the other, ever since.
Grinning broadly, I hope someone out there has had their fancy tickled by the lengths to which I've gone to repeat this message quite consistently, over and over again. It's amazing that I do this, no?
God save me.
Dan B |
