Raleigh, I tire of these antics. I don't know WHAT your problem is suddenly? What your game is? Is it really so silly as this: "Then you show up here trying to correct what was stated properly to begin with"???
We've chatted many times before, I've enjoyed your analysis before, and for whatever reason now you blister at my minor contribution to the discussion.
And REALLY Raleigh, while I've posted direct quotes in support of my "contribution", all you offered in return was your PERSONAL SAY SO. Now, as I've said, that's good enough for me. But give us a break here! I post with full "quoted" documentation, and you VERBALLY say it is obsolete. Let's keep it in context. No One is arguing with your analysis, NEVER HAVE (since my one MINOR attempt at the "correction", which in my mind was my supplying GOOD NEWS)
Now it appears you are saying the 54% figure is something I made up? Come on Raleigh! If anyone has studied FTEL/FNet it is you. Are you REALLY saying to your knowledge FTEL/FNet has not sent out documentation that states the 54% figure? If so, perhaps NOW I understand why you took issue with my supplying said info.
If you REALLY haven't a clue where I got the 54% from, post it as a direct question, and I'd be glad to accomodate. BTW, I believe I said VIA the WWW Site, not ON the WWW Site.
But what's the point is supplying it NOW? If it is obsolete?
Really you surprise me. As if it was a crime to suggest that FNet might target a market as large as 54% of American Households. If I was hyping the stock, OK, granted, put me in my place. But I was innocently posting a direct quote from FTEL. And IMO it was NOT out of context. It was right on point, understanding that there has been no public statement made to indicate it was as obsolete as it may have been when I first posted it.
Raleigh, let's get over it, OK? Colin |
