Re: 8/26/05 - [OSTK/NCANS] The Mystery of Overstock Ownership
"Byrne, family and friends, and a few institutions own at least 99.9% of all genuine shares, and likley more than 120%."
- Bob O'Brien
Re: **** BYRNE 12 ANSWERS AWESOME******
by: buzzed_light_beer (M/Infinity and Beyond!)
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Sell 08/26/05 10:54 am
Msg: 40182 of 40526
Because your responsiblity is to your shareholders not to the enforcement of market bad guys. Do you job. Make the company as profitable as possible. And then, start a crusade on the market bad guys.
Thing is though that once the bad guys disappear, so will Byrne's interest. Likely to do a walk-about then.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40176 by easter_bunny_d3
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: **** BYRNE 12 ANSWERS AWESOME******
by: easter_bunny_d3 (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 11:47 am
Msg: 40206 of 40526
Uh, you do know who the largest shareholder is, correct?
In fact, do you realize who the shareholders of 100% of the real shares are, or thereabouts?
So your flabby posturing over supposed shareholder outrage over Byrne's actions is a bit tired, my friend.
If the company is being mugged by bad guys, punch the bad guy in the face. Don't pretend that they will just go away once they get tired.
Sorry that is causing the cartel so much grief.
You ain't seen nothin' yet, IMO. It will likely get far harder for the bad guys to break the law for profit from here (if the allegations are true).
Thank you for your valuable time.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40182 by buzzed_light_beer
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: mr_revere (265/M/Boston.MA)
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Sell 08/26/05 11:51 am
Msg: 40207 of 40526
So why does this Non-Profit-since-1997 Turd even trade?
And how are chumps supposed to be able to go out and buy it?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40206 by easter_bunny_d3
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: mfairview1000 08/26/05 11:57 am
Msg: 40209 of 40526
Good questions. Starting to understand what counterfeit shares mean now? By gobbling up shares on the open market, Byrnes is making his case empirically.
1) I can account for 100% of the shares
2) I can insure they're not being sold
3) How is buying and selling still happening Mr. SEC?
Case closed.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40207 by mr_revere
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: mike_maguire2044 08/26/05 12:20 pm
Msg: 40219 of 40526
"1) I can account for 100% of the shares"
He says he already owns or can account for 100% of the shares. If this were really true (which it isn't), he wouldn't need to buy "fake" shares to account for them, would he? Think how illogical that would be -- selling real shares in a secondary offering to raise money ... and then using the money to buy up fake shares? Not exactly a winning business plan.
At what point did Byrne start claiming he could account for all the real shares? Was it before or after the stock started falling? I'm guessing it was after and that he wasn't complaining about fake trading when the stock was on the way up.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40209 by mfairview1000
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: claude_mendelson
Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Buy 08/26/05 02:08 pm
Msg: 40254 of 40526
Wow you are a moron. Grade A assclown. Look at SEC filings and you'll see that Byrne, his father and the top 10 institutions own the vast majority of the shares. Of course you aren't interested in the truth.
This one is tough to comprehend: The company 'overstock.com, Inc. (A Delaware LLC)'issued a secondary. Patrick Byrne, PhD., an individual investor, bought shares from that secondary using his own money, not the company's.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40219 by mike_maguire2044
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: mike_maguire2044 08/26/05 02:26 pm
Msg: 40265 of 40526
"The company 'overstock.com, Inc. (A Delaware LLC)'issued a secondary. Patrick Byrne, PhD., an individual investor, bought shares from that secondary using his own money, not the company's."
He's also been buying on the open market. Understand? He's buying what he claims to be "fake" shares.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40254 by claude_mendelson
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: mike_maguire2044 08/26/05 02:44 pm
Msg: 40268 of 40526
Here are Byrne's latest purchases:
shareholder.com 16432&SID=05-00
shareholder.com 16431&SID=05-00
shareholder.com 16118&SID=05-00
...If he really believes him and his friends already own 100% of the company ... and if he believes the shares being traded on the open market aren't even real, then why is buying so many of them???
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40265 by mike_maguire2044
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: easter_bunny_d3 (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 04:28 pm
Msg: 40300 of 40526
Here's how it works out.
Byrne, family and friends, and a few institutions own at least 99.9% of all genuine shares, and likley more than 120%.
How is that possible?
Easy.
The short sellers that are legit borrow genuine shares from institutions, and then sell those - and if the institutions are buying (at artificially low prices driven by the additional shares - essentially subsidized by the short sellers) or Byrne is buying, they receive those genuine shares from the short sellers.
There is nothing wrong with that. All legal.
A guy by the name of Ryan did that with Stutz in the 1920's, and wound up with over 150% of all issued shares - he'd loan them out to the shorts and then buy them back.
When the shorts had to cover in the Stutz case, they tried every dirty trick in the book, and ultimately wound up paying 500% more than they had sold them short for.
The reason Dr. Byrne allerted everyone here about the genuine shares being spoken for, I believe, was to alert the shorts that they were setting up something ugly if they keep on shorting, as well as to caution those selling illegal naked short shares.
There are no legitimate shares with which to cver now.
That was the point.
The only shares that are trading now are likely FTDs.
Thank you for your interest.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40268 by mike_maguire2044
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: mike_maguire2044 08/26/05 04:34 pm
Msg: 40303 of 40526
"Byrne, family and friends, and a few institutions own at least 99.9% of all genuine shares"
Again, if that's the case (which it isn't, but let's just say), then why does he keep buying "fake" shares on the open market???
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40300 by easter_bunny_d3
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: easter_bunny_d3 (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 04:55 pm
Msg: 40315 of 40526
Same reason Ryan did with Stutz.
It's a good investment.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40303 by mike_maguire2044
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: mike_maguire2044 08/26/05 05:06 pm
Msg: 40330 of 40526
"It's a good investment."
Why would fake shares be a good investment? Or are you saying he's just making a quick trade? I guess that fits, since he told the motley fool he doesn't even want to stick around with the company long-term. However he doesn't seem like the savviest trader, since he was buying big in the upper 40's.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40315 by easter_bunny_d3
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: easter_bunny_d3 (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 05:11 pm
Msg: 40340 of 40526
Read this very slowly, or have someone read it to you.
There will be a test at the end.
Dr. Byrne feels that his stock is a good investment. I presume he demands and gets certificates each time he buys, thus further depleting the legitimate shares available for covering.
Read it again if you still don't get it.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40330 by mike_maguire2044
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: mike_maguire2044 08/26/05 05:17 pm
Msg: 40342 of 40526
"Dr. Byrne feels that his stock is a good investment. I presume he demands and gets certificates each time he buys."
But wait ... how could they possibly give him certificates if he and his friends and family already owns them all (or 120% of them, for that matter)? You're right, I don't understand.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40340 by easter_bunny_d3
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: easter_bunny_3d (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 05:26 pm
Msg: 40349 of 40526
I believe that a fair amount of the institutions have lent their shares out - it is the only way that the legitimate short interest could be as high as it is. Those shares are not certificated, as they are lent out. But if bought by a Byrne or other responsible long (and the certificate demanded), the certificates are deliverable as they are legitimately borrowed shares.
So here's the thought experiment for the day. Let's imagine that after Byrne buys the final chunk, and the institutions have finished taking their positions, that the shares that have been loaned are now called back, and the shares, real shares, are required to be returned.
Where do the shorts get the legitimate shares to return to the lenders?
Remember that the tutes are now not selling, and neither is Byrne, nor FOB's.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40342 by mike_maguire2044
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Where Bob and Dr Byrnes went wrong
by: Mark_de_Shark (48/M/CA) 08/26/05 05:46 pm
Msg: 40360 of 40526
They didn't do their homework. While complaining about counterfeit shares they double counted shares and miscounted shares held by institutions and mutual funds.
Lets examine the numbers from the Yahoo Top 10 list.
Buffalo Funds 500K, wow that's a lot of shares. Unfortunately it's not all shares. Dr Byrnes should know that Buffalo funds owns Overstock convertible bonds that must be counted as "shares" when reporting. Off to a pretty bad start. So how many actual shares does Buffalo Funds own Bob?
Calamos Growth Fund 450K, nice chunk. But wait a minute, we can't count these because they are rolled up into the 587,100 shares listed for Calamos Advisors. Double counting, bad Bob.
Morgan Stanley, double counted
Pru, double counted
Turner, double counted
and on and on
Sloppy research by Dr Byrnes and no research by Bob.
Thank you for your time
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: Mark_de_Shark (48/M/CA) 08/26/05 05:49 pm
Msg: 40361 of 40526
Will Dr Byrnes buy the imaginary "final chunk" before or after OSTK does yet another secondary stock offering?
Does your "final chunk" include all the stock that derives from Overstock's convertible bonds?
Thank you for your time
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40349 by easter_bunny_3d
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Where Bob and Dr Byrnes went wrong
by: easter_bunny_3d (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 06:27 pm
Msg: 40371 of 40526
Uh, the assumption is by you - do you have s definitive count of how many institutions it takes to get to the 8 million number as of July?
No. You don't. The only one that could would be the transfer agent and the company - that's Dr. Byrne, BTW.
But let's say it is 20. Or 10. Or 25. Whatever.
Assuming you have a point, what is it, and how does it change the overall calculation?
I really think that you are a little strident about trying to discount the holdings. Maybe you will be one of the overjoyed masses who will find the true number of FTD's interesting when they are known. I know I will.
I will also point out that none of this speculation would be necessary if the SEC just told us what was failed on a daily basis - we haven't heard one decent explanation for hiding all that yet. Maybe it will be more obvious once we know what OSTK's were.
Thank you for your continued interest.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40360 by Mark_de_Shark
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: easter_bunny_3d (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 06:29 pm
Msg: 40374 of 40526
That would be the offering that they need to do in about two years, when they are at around $2 billion in sales, and when the actual number of fails and level of manipulation is well documented history, affording the perpetrators no relief. And the chunk is impossible to time, but given that it is imaginary, feel free to imagine it whenever and however you like.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40361 by Mark_de_Shark
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: m1s0n 08/26/05 06:51 pm
Msg: 40382 of 40526
If all that you're saying is true (and I see no reason to doubt you), then it's almost inevitable that the Byrnes will make a huge profit at the shorts' expense. The only big question is timing.
This brings up the part I don't understand. Aren't the shorts and naked shorts playing into his trap? Why complain about it then, or sue Rocker, if the situation they are creating is going to lead to possibly billions in profit? Is it a smoke screen in case the stock collapses somehow? Could one or both Byrne's be the Sith Lord, secretly guiding the whole thing?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40374 by easter_bunny_3d
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: easter_bunny_3d (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 06:58 pm
Msg: 40385 of 40526
Well, for starters, the reason there is a suit is because Dr. Byrne allegedly discovered an illegal collusion that resulted in what he purports is unfair business practices.
We will all know the truth soon enough.
If he is correct, the shorts are continuing to short largely to convince one and all that there is no problem, and that he is wrong about his contentions. It is sort of like a novice poker player pushing all his chips into the pot in an effort to bluff his opponents - failing to recognize that he is playing guys that don't bluff, and can afford that pot many times over.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40382 by m1s0n
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: m1s0n 08/26/05 07:06 pm
Msg: 40387 of 40526
But didn't you explain how these unfair business practices ultimately lead to more profit for Byrnes? That's what it seemed to me - the more naked shorts, the more he makes in the end because he owns all the real shares.
So in your analogy, with this lawsuit Byrne is calling the bluff to get the cards on the table? I'll be the first to admit I don't know much about the Market, but it seems to me that a lawsuit wouldn't be the most effective way to go about it, and is high-risk. So there has to be additional motivation somehow. Personal? Publicity? Does he hope for and have a realistic chance for a large punative award?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40385 by easter_bunny_3d
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: easter_bunny_3d (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 07:20 pm
Msg: 40392 of 40526
I think that Dr. Byrne is not motivated by profit hopes for his shares driven by some unfair advantage - rather, I think he just wants to eliminate illegal unfair business practices that are allegedly being used against his company.
A suit is the court of final appeals for that, as the regulators seem uninterested.
I suspect that the ultimate size of the award will be more of a vindication of his stance and courage than anything he will personally benefit from.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40387 by m1s0n
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Where Bob and Dr Byrnes went wrong
by: Mark_de_Shark (48/M/CA) 08/26/05 07:22 pm
Msg: 40393 of 40526
"Uh, the assumption is by you"
No Bob, I've made no assumption.
Do you get it Bob?
It doesn't require transfer agents or anything else to show that Dr Byrne was simply mistaken in his claim.
"Assuming you have a point, what is it, and how does it change the overall calculation?"
There is no other "overall calculation", just the one Dr Byrne put together which falsely claims that the Yahoo top 10 list shows 8 million shares held by mutual funds and institutions.
If you do have some other "overall calculation" be sure to share it with us, preferably with some factual numbers instead of something you just made up out of thin air ("let's say it is 20. Or 10. Or 25. Whatever".
"I will also point out that none of this speculation would be necessary if the SEC just told us what was failed on a daily basis"
Your speculation is never ending Bob. It's the nature of someone who has a fundamental disconnect with reality.
Thank your for your time
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40371 by easter_bunny_3d
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: m1s0n 08/26/05 07:31 pm
Msg: 40395 of 40526
I thank you for your straightforward answers. Don't take this as argumentative, but I'm still just a little confused about something at this point.
The unfair business practices he wants to stop by the litigation are collusion between journalists, analysts and funds to badmouth his company and depress his stock prices. If his benefit from a final award is mainly vindication, why is a lawsuit more effective than having his company's performance exceed their analysis, while his stock prices will be inevitably high at their expense regardless of performance?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40392 by easter_bunny_3d
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Where Bob and Dr Byrnes went wrong
by: easter_bunny_3d (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 07:34 pm
Msg: 40399 of 40526
The purpose of the calculation is to figure out how many FTD's are trading in the system.
Is there some part of that you feel is incoherent?
If the SEC reported how many were trading in the system, on a daily basis, there would be no need for the calculation.
Is that incoherent?
Like Mr. Matthews, rolling your cyber eyes and declaring something to be disconnected from reality does not make it so.
Which part of the above do you feel is disconnected from reality, and why?
As always, appreciate your insights.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40393 by Mark_de_Shark
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: easter_bunny_3d (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 07:55 pm
Msg: 40408 of 40526
Well, that is one possible perspective, I suppose.
Here's mine.
The unlawful behavior, for starters, is the doctoring of research and front running of the same.
To use Dr. Byrne's words, "what part of illegal don't you understand?"
Now, some could philosophically question whether fighting back when you are attacked is the right way to respond to illegal predation, versus turning the other cheek.
I fall into the camp that if someone is robbing your convenience store every day, adopting the wisdom of operating a really really efficient and profitable store as an alternative to filing charges against the perpetrator is foolishness of the highest order, propagated by our friends the perpetrators.
It actually flies in the face of logic, when you put it into basic terms, as do many of the wisdoms and customs of Wall Street.
"Don't worry, he'll stop when he's done" is one way of responding your dog humping your neighbor's leg. I think it is inadequate.
How many WalMart stores do you think they would allow to be robbed, with the wisdom tendered that if only the chain was operated better, it wouldn't matter in the long run? Maybe true, but it doesn't address the robbery. In any other business it would be laughed out of the room, but here, it is repeated with a kind of reverence, as though by repetition it will become true.
It isn't.
Taking someone's money and delivering nothing, or a fake represented as real, or an IOU represented as the genuine article, is fraud, IN EVERY OTHER WORLD EXCEPT WALL STREET.
Why is it that if you take a buyer's money and never deliver the car he bought, you go to jail, but if you do it with stock, you get a promotion (Dr. Byrne's line)?
It is a carefully crafted deception, foisted on us and deliberately made very complicated, so that the system can commit fraud, over and over again, but not be called on it. It is an institutionalized deception intended to defraud countless shareholders out of their money, and it is recent - twenty years ago if you didn't deliver within T+3, you were bought in. When the DTCC acquired the NSCC and this huge monopoly was formed, lacking essential oversights and checks and balances, that changed, and suddenly we started to get settlement failures that were condoned by the system, and then assisted (with the borrow program) by it, and then pardoned (grandfathering, which is a flat out violation of the SEC's mandate to settle trades promptly, and which the SEC does not have the legal authority to waive).
Fraud is fraud. Theft is theft. RICO is RICO (note that Congress decided arbitrarily that RICO wouldn't apply to securities cases in the mid-90's, again, oddly).
And no matter how many Matthews of the world say black is white, and up is down, and they don' know anything about any misbehavior, it still doesn't change the obvious.
Figure it out, is what I say.
Hint: Just publish the list by company, daily, and the system would fix itself - and yet is as jealously guarded as our nuke codes - one needs to ask why that is, and who is being protected.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40395 by m1s0n
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Where Bob and Dr Byrnes went wrong
by: Mark_de_Shark (48/M/CA) 08/26/05 08:09 pm
Msg: 40415 of 40526
"The purpose of the calculation is to figure out how many FTD's are trading in the system."
No Bob, that wasn't the purpose of that calculation. The purpose of the calculation was to show that there were no shares available to support the trading volume because they were all owned by Dr Byrnes, friends, family and institutions.
You've said so yourself. You've claimed there are no "real" shares left and therefore all the currently trading shares are "counterfeit".
So is it so difficult to admit that Patrick's chart (page 37) is simply false?
False, as in not true.
The problem here, Bob, is that it shows that you and Dr Byrnes don't do very good research. It says you aren't very credible. I've noticed that characteristic in much of your work. A real lack of rigor, a lack of interest in the truth.
Thank you for your time
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40399 by easter_bunny_3d
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Where Bob and Dr Byrnes went wrong
by: easter_bunny_3d (100/Candyland) 08/26/05 08:15 pm
Msg: 40424 of 40526
Actually, my statement is that there are no genuine shares with which to cover.
That is different than there being inadequate shares to trade.
They are not mutually exclusive.
There are 6.5 million shorted shares - that is more than enough to support a half million shares a day of trading, presuming that the entire tradable float of shorted shares changed hands every 11 days.
But it has nothing to do with how many legitimate shares are available with which to cover those shorted shares.
Surely you can appreciate that simple, easy differentiation.
Why confuse the two?
And why the continuing ad hominems?
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40415 by Mark_de_Shark
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: Mark_de_Shark (48/M/CA) 08/26/05 08:22 pm
Msg: 40434 of 40526
"The unlawful behavior, for starters, is the doctoring of research and front running of the same."
There is nothing unlawful about buying or selling a stock ahead of a research report Bob.
Do you have some specific actionable doctoring of research that you are referring to Bob or are you just throwing around generalities without any legal basis.
After all, I would hate to think that whoever "doctored" page 37 of that research report into OSTK stock ownership did something illegal.
I think everyone understands what the word "illegal" means Bob. The trick is figuring out whether some specific action qualifies as being "illegal". That isn't so easy as can be seen by the vast numbers of lawyers who argue in front of judges every day over exactly that.
In reference to your convenience store analogy could you explain what is being robbed from Overstock every day? Is it cash? Merchandise? Their receivables? What's being stolen every day from them Bob?
Thank you for your time
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40408 by easter_bunny_3d
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: holders of 100% of the real shares
by: perfectt99 08/26/05 09:17 pm
Msg: 40455 of 40526
Mark_de_Shark, without double counting I came up with 7.093 million shares held by the top ten institutions and mutual funds listed on Yahoo's Major Holders page. However, on the same page, Yahoo indicates that institutions and mutual funds own 44% of all outstanding. If you do the math this comes out to be 8.2 million shares, about the same number that Dr. Byrne came up with his presentation. I guess if you wanted to you could try to find a way to make this discrepency the issue, but I don't buy it and I don't think a jury will.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40434 by Mark_de_Shark
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: Where Bob and Dr Byrnes went wrong
by: Mark_de_Shark (48/M/CA) 08/26/05 11:20 pm
Msg: 40486 of 40526
Is page 37 accurate Bob or is it false?
In particular the line that says there are 8 million shares held by institutions on the top 10 list of Yahoo.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40424 by easter_bunny_3d
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
perfect99, one last comment
by: Mark_de_Shark (48/M/CA) 08/26/05 11:56 pm
Msg: 40500 of 40526
Almost forgot about you.
"Mark_de_Shark, without double counting I came up with 7.093 million shares held by the top ten institutions and mutual funds listed on Yahoo's Major Holders page. However, on the same page, Yahoo indicates that institutions and mutual funds own 44% of all outstanding. If you do the math this comes out to be 8.2 million shares, about the same number that Dr. Byrne came up with his presentation."
1) That isn't how Dr Byrne came up with his number
2) Yahoo makes the same double counting mistakes and miscounting, it simply shouldn't be relied on and nobody who is serious about the issue would do so. It was quite surprising to see the CEO of a major corporation do so, almost as surprising as his childish act of calling Camelback "Camelhump". Spoiled child syndrome?
Thank you for your time and goodnight
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40455 by perfectt99
finance.messages.yahoo.com
=====
Re: MARK THE SHARK, MARK THE SHARK
by: easter_bunny_3d (100/Candyland) 08/27/05 02:10 am
Msg: 40526 of 40526
It's a shame that you are newly single again. That explains the barely controlled anger and resentment.
Do wealthy, successful people bother you?
There seems to be a lot of anger present in many of your posts - it is a red flag for potential suitors of either gender.
I would try to work on that - the black cloud of venomous rage is not pretty.
I'll work on finding out how Dr. Byrne arrived at his numbers when I get a chance - there is likely a simple explanation that you missed, and that I'm not conversant with - I don't provide Dr. Byrne with his presentation materials, contrary to what you imagine in your "voice-talent" and "special services" world.
Nice life ya got there, eh?
Thank you for your....oh...screw it.
I'm outta here.
Posted as a reply to: Msg 40497 by Mark_de_Shark
finance.messages.yahoo.com |
