SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Tulipomania Blowoff Contest: Why and When will it end?
YHOO 52.580.0%Jun 26 5:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Mad2 who wrote (3192)11/19/2000 9:54:36 PM
From: RockyBalboa  Read Replies (1) of 3543
 
IPET....

upside.com

| In Opinion |

The verdict: Did Pets.com wrongfully kill Sock Puppet?
November 17, 2000 12:00 AM PT
by Ali Asadullah

The defendant: Pets.com (IPET)
The charge:
Wrongful death of Sock Puppet, the Pets.com mascot

Judge's commentary: When dealing with an issue as grave as the extermination of a life, it is important to explore all angles and leave no rock unturned. To this end I have carefully examined the facts before me as well as the comments provided by the UpsideToday jury.

Before rendering my verdict, however, I would like to explore, for a moment, a theory on Sock Puppet's death put forth by a member of the esteemed jury. In deliberations, Juror #15 suggested that the crime in question was possibly no crime at all; rather, that Sock Puppet's demise was justifiable homicide. He implies a scenario in which a sock puppet, absorbed by the excesses that often accompany instant fame, spent and spent, and drained the coffers dry. Said that juror: "Pets.com took in $9.4 million in revenue and spent $9.6 million on goods and $14.7 million on marketing.
That darn puppet ate $14.7 million worth of dog food. Should have been shot sooner." See juror's full statement ....
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext