DOW 13000!!!....Clinton Couldn't Do It! Bush Did!
Trace
Remember the old crap stated by the commie dems who say that clinton
had a better economy? HAHAHA!
What a bunch of crap huh?
GO BUSH GO!
P.Henery
You know less about the economy then you do politics.
Bert Hyman
news:1177337082.1...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> DOW JONES 13000!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!
Where do you get your quotes? So far as I can tell today's high (so
far) was 12,983 at about 9:51 EDT. As I write this, it's bobbling
around 12,966.
> Remember the old crap stated by the commie dems who say that
> clinton had a better economy? HAHAHA!
>
> What a bunch of crap huh?
What kind of control, exactly, does the person sitting in the
President's chair have over the national economy?
Do you think it's a good idea for the government to have control of
any sort over the national economy?
Besides, how representative of the national economy is the DJIA
anyway?
> GO BUSH GO!
Soon enough.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
Billary/2008
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns991B5D98ACC...@127.0.0.1...
Now you're being a Shill Bert. The DOW is a very good indicator of a
healthy economy. Stock prices respond to increased corporate profits. Good
earnings means MORE jobs. More JOBS means a better economy and rising stock
prices. THE BUSH TAX CUTS HAVE WORKED AND ARE WORKING.
But you already knew that. I just thought I would humiliate you by
reminding you that you're being a shill.
Trace
I could go through all of your questions and answer them with current
economic data, but why bother when whatever I say, you will discount.
So, let's just say that if it was in Clinton's term in the White House
that the Dow Jones reached 13000, would democrats say it was his
fault? Sure they would.
How often have we been told about how good Cinton's economy was?
Haven't we heard this many times in the past 6 years?
So, like democrats, Republicans can say that even though the country
was hit by a major attack in 2001, and it took our economy a long time
to recover, and though we've been deeply involved in an expensive war,
look at what the Bush admin has accomplished! DOW 13000 is just a
few points away at this moment.
That is an incredible accomplishment and it would not have happened
without tax cuts to spur the economy years back.
Thank God that tree hugger algore lost the election.
Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Democrat
Bert Hyman
news:Lx3Xh.5023$_u2.582@trnddc04:
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns991B5D98ACC...@127.0.0.1...
>> trace...@yahoo.com (Trace) wrote in
>> news:1177337082.1...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> DOW JONES 13000!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!
>>
>> Where do you get your quotes? So far as I can tell today's high
>> (so far) was 12,983 at about 9:51 EDT. As I write this, it's
>> bobbling around 12,966.
>>
>>> Remember the old crap stated by the commie dems who say that
>>> clinton had a better economy? HAHAHA!
>>>
>>> What a bunch of crap huh?
>>
>> What kind of control, exactly, does the person sitting in the
>> President's chair have over the national economy?
>>
>> Do you think it's a good idea for the government to have control
>> of any sort over the national economy?
>>
>> Besides, how representative of the national economy is the DJIA
>> anyway?
>>
>>> GO BUSH GO!
>>
>> Soon enough.
>>
>
> Now you're being a Shill Bert.
A shill? For whom?
> The DOW is a very good indicator of a healthy economy.
Why? The DJIA as currently computed based on the stock prices of only
30 large corporations.
> Stock prices respond to increased corporate profits
Sometimes. More often they respond to rumors, government reports,
world events and "analysts".
DemzRock
"Trace" <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1177339268.3...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
So you guys think taking years just to catch up and slightly pass Clinton is
that much of an achievement? Truly pathetic. It tooks all these years and
years for the W economy just to catch up to Clinton highs. If other
leadership were in charge, we might easily be looking at 15000 or more by
now. I doubt Gore would have ignored warnings and the attacks of 2001 would
not have impacted our economy. Also, I doubt Gore would have let as much
outsourcing happen nor the wasteful wars with the wrong countries. I bet
Gore's investing in alternative fuels would have put many to work at good
wages and would have made us a world leader in that technology. Etc. Etc.
Gr
Billary has a small problem. He thinks he can say anything and anyone will
believe him. He has no clue how this economy works. How could you know much
of anything including reality when you're hunkered down in your bomb shelter
all day with your guns.
Igor
%K_Liber...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote:
> "Bert Hyman" <b...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns991B5D98ACC...@127.0.0.1...
>
>
>
>
>
> > tracey12...@yahoo.com (Trace) wrote in
> >news:1177337082.1...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> DOW JONES 13000!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!
>
> > Where do you get your quotes? So far as I can tell today's high (so
> > far) was 12,983 at about 9:51 EDT. As I write this, it's bobbling
> > around 12,966.
>
> >> Remember the old crap stated by the commie dems who say that
> >> clinton had a better economy? HAHAHA!
>
> >> What a bunch of crap huh?
>
> > What kind of control, exactly, does the person sitting in the
> > President's chair have over the national economy?
>
> > Do you think it's a good idea for the government to have control of
> > any sort over the national economy?
>
> > Besides, how representative of the national economy is the DJIA
> > anyway?
>
> >> GO BUSH GO!
>
> > Soon enough.
>
> Now you're being a Shill Bert. The DOW is a very good indicator of a
> healthy economy. Stock prices respond to increased corporate profits. Good
> earnings means MORE jobs. More JOBS means a better economy and rising stock
> prices. THE BUSH TAX CUTS HAVE WORKED AND ARE WORKING.
>
Yeah, more jobs. Too bad they're all in China.
John R Rybock
Clinton came in with Dow around 3200. He left with it at around
10,300. That is a 222% increase.
Bush has gone from 10,300 to 13,000. That's 26%.
We have a little under 2 years left of Bush. I'm sure a Dow of 33,000
by then.
MikeC
What matters more to the average American, the Dow, or $4 per gallon gas?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=news&sid=afOlUzd30YOo
robx...@nowhere.com
>On Apr 23, 7:04 am, Trace <tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> DOW JONES 13000!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!
>>
>> Remember the old crap stated by the commie dems who say that clinton
>> had a better economy? HAHAHA!
>>
>> What a bunch of crap huh?
>>
>> GO BUSH GO!
>
>Clinton came in with Dow around 3200. He left with it at around
>10,300. That is a 222% increase.
Minus the dot com bubble and corporate reporting fraud scandals?
Matt
wrote:
Care to indicate which of the DOW components were a part of the dot
com bubble or the corporate reporting fraud scandals?
It helps a lot when you actually know what you are talking about...
Matt
robx...@nowhere.com
Perhaps you are about to claim the dot com bubble bursting did not
effect the value of the stock market?
Kevin Cunningham
"Billary/2008" <F#%K_Lib...@vastrightwingconspiracy.gov> wrote in message
news:Lx3Xh.5023$_u2.582@trnddc04...
indices. How bright do you have to be to understand that? Do you buy cars
by horse power only?
Now the national debt is the highest ever, the trade deficit is the highest
ever, the housing market is tanking (thats probably why the Dow is so high)
and credit card debt is close to the limit.
Matt
wrote:
Ahhh, now its the stock market. That's not what you said, nor what the
thread is about. The DOW is composed of 30 stocks. Which of those was
involved in either the dot com bubble or the corporate fraud reporting
scandals.
If you can't answer, say so. If there were none, admit you were wrong
and move
on.
Matt
Baldin Lee Pramer
> DOW JONES 13000!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!
Please explain what you think Bush did to make the DJIA do this. You
can't, can you? IOW, you have no idea how economics works.
BLP
robx...@nowhere.com
>\\
Odd that you're avoiding the subject. I'm sure many people use the
terms "Dow" and "stock market" interchangibly. Please refer to the
following cite for information on how the dot coms and corporate
reporting scandals effected all markets.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/dow/
Did the stock market lose a considerable amount of its value due to
the two mentioned reasons? Would it not be fair to subtract that
amount out when you attempt to determine how well the "Bush market"
performed?
robx...@nowhere.com
<Baldin...@msn.com> wrote:
About the same things Clinton did to produce the values trumpeted
around here.
Trace
GO BUSH GO!!!!!! 13000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Charlie Wolf
wrote:
You are a fucking insufferable idiot.
Regards,
Trace
13135!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why didn't comrade clinton do
this?????????
I know why! Clinton couldn't do it!
Baldin Lee Pramer
wrote:
> On 24 Apr 2007 07:43:35 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer
>
> >On Apr 23, 8:04 am, Trace <tracey12...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> DOW JONES 13000!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEAH!
>
> >Please explain what you think Bush did to make the DJIA do this. You
> >can't, can you? IOW, you have no idea how economics works.
>
> About the same things Clinton did to produce the values trumpeted
> around here.
In other words... nothing. Glad we agree on that.
Baldin Lee Pramer
Matt
wrote:
I'm sure they don't. Anyone that actually understands how stocks work
knows what the DOW is composed of, and that it has nothing to do with
the dot com scandal.
>
> http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/dow/
>
> Did the stock market lose a considerable amount of its value due to
> the two mentioned reasons? Would it not be fair to subtract that
> amount out when you attempt to determine how well the "Bush market"
> performed?
You seem to be having problems answering the question. Which of the
"dot com scandal" stocks were in the DOW? And why would I subtract
much of anything from the "Bush market"? You start it on the day he
took office, you compare it to now. It is what we have done for every
other
President, why suddenly change?
Matt
robx...@nowhere.com
<Baldin...@msn.com> wrote:
Never said anything different than that.
robx...@nowhere.com
If you choose to ignore what I've said and cited, that's your right.
There doesn't have to be a specific stock in the DOW that was directly
part of the dot com scandal. The markets acted in response to the
scandal as the cite I presented to mentioned. So while the "dot coms"
may have been part of another index, they affected all of them. I
also note that you keep ignoring the corporate reporting fraud
scandals that I mentioned that also affected the value of the markets.
Matt
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kiddo, you need to keep track of what you say. Here's the original
exchange:
>Clinton came in with Dow around 3200. He left with it at around
>10,300. That is a 222% increase.
Minus the dot com bubble and corporate reporting fraud scandals?
See, you said that the dot com bubble and corporate reporting fraud
scandals
somehow affected the 30 stocks that make up the Dow. I asked you how
and
since then all you have done is avoid the issue.
So, here's a simple question, which you can either answer or admit
that you
were wrong:
What Dow stock was involved in either the dot com bubble or corporate
reporting
fraud scandal.
Take all the time you want.
matt
robx...@nowhere.com
I've already provided cite that speaks to how all markets were
effected by the dot com crash. As I just said (and you ignored) a
particular stock need not be in the DOW to be effected by the crash.
All markets appear to have reacted to it, unless you have an
explanation of why they all lost value at about the same time.
>
>So, here's a simple question, which you can either answer or admit
>that you
>were wrong:
>
>What Dow stock was involved in either the dot com bubble or corporate
>reporting
>fraud scandal.
>
>Take all the time you want.
Start with one of the first noteworthy stocks that got in trouble,
Xerox. It's listed in the DOW, I believe.
Feel free to keep accusing me of running around the subject while you
yourself are doing just that.
Matt
wrote:
Markets do not "gain" or "lose" value. If you don't understand that,
you really shouldn't be investing, or discussing investments. Markets
trade at a given level, based on what people perceive them to be
worth.
So, so far, you've shown you don't understand much about the market.
>
>
>
> >So, here's a simple question, which you can either answer or admit
> >that you
> >were wrong:
>
> >What Dow stock was involved in either the dot com bubble or corporate
> >reporting
> >fraud scandal.
>
> >Take all the time you want.
>
> Start with one of the first noteworthy stocks that got in trouble,
> Xerox. It's listed in the DOW, I believe.
You believe incorrectly. Xerox has never been a part of the DOW
Industrials.
Next?
>
> Feel free to keep accusing me of running around the subject while you
> yourself are doing just that.
No, I'm just waiting for you to explain the statement you made.
Matt
Steve
...and that determines it's value... every value is determined by
what perceives it to be worth. that's what value is.
>So, so far, you've shown you don't understand much about the market.
>
Irony anyone?
Matt
You really are an idiot, aren't you?
>
> >So, so far, you've shown you don't understand much about the market.
>
> Irony anyone?
Yeah, there's a lot of irony, Steve-o. Mostly that you keep creeping
out
of kill files to annoy people.
Learn something, then post.
Matt
Steve
Value = what people perceive something to be worth. that's what value
is, Matt...Sorry to have to educate you again. You really are in need
of education....
--
"You don't know what a margin call is. And yeah, I
buy and sell stock a lot"
Milt Shook apr 28,2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
"Put it this way; the only way to meet a margin call is to either put
cash or assets into your account, or sell off some stock to bring the
asset level back up. It's not possible to do either without
experiencing a reduction in asset levels somewhere."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?&hl=en
" If I empty out one account to meet the minimum equity level
in another account, I must have lost some money somewhere"
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?&hl=en
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is
reduced by the amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
"When you're margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset. If
you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
Matt
Sure Steve-o. Whatever you say.
And... BACK into the killfile the idiot goes.
Matt
Steve
Notice that Matt has never been able to refute anything I've ever
posted.. All he can do is voice his displeasure at having me educate
him once again,<LOL> and then he runs away and hides...
Matt
Steve-o quotes from the past:
"Oil can be cleaned up and reused forever"
"If I have a margin call, I just dump some money into my margin
account. It still belongs to me".
ROFLMAO. Refute you, kiddo? An entire legion of book writers is out
there
just copying down your every word for the ultimate book of stupidity.
Buh-bye Steve-o. Say hi to the trailer trash for us.
Matt
Steve
<LOL> So where's the rebuttal, Matt? hard to refute the truth, isn't
it?
>"If I have a margin call, I just dump some money into my margin
>account. It still belongs to me".
<LOL> So where's the rebuttal, Matt? hard to refute the truth, isn't
it?
>ROFLMAO. Refute you, kiddo? An entire legion of book writers is out
>there
>just copying down your every word for the ultimate book of stupidity.
<LOL> So where's the rebuttal, Matt? hard to refute the truth, isn't
it?
>Buh-bye Steve-o. Say hi to the trailer trash for us.
Run away, Matt..... Booooo!
>Matt
SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim
in office, then the morons claim that bush can't do anything about it,
however when the dow jones hits 13,000 (meaning the rich get richer, the
poor get poorer and the middle class goes to hell), then they are right
there crowing about it.
you republicscums are defa, dumb, and fucking stupid.
save the planet, kill a republican today
FRANKIE LEE
You see,evil and bad nuts always oppose Bush.Good and decent people always
like Bush.
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlowHim" <kil...@killgod.com> wrote in message
news:si5Zh.9728$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
milt....@gmail.com
Rebuttal to what? he's just posting it for the sheer mindless
stupidity of the statement itself...
>
> >"If I have a margin call, I just dump some money into my margin
> >account. It still belongs to me".
>
> <LOL> So where's the rebuttal, Matt? hard to refute the truth, isn't
> it?
It's just funny, is all. You think by dumping some of your liquid cash
into an account containing borrowed money, you're not experiencing a
loss of anything. The mind reels.
>
> >ROFLMAO. Refute you, kiddo? An entire legion of book writers is out
> >there
> >just copying down your every word for the ultimate book of stupidity.
>
> <LOL> So where's the rebuttal, Matt? hard to refute the truth, isn't
> it?
Canyon, the only truth is that you're too damn dumb to know how dumb
you are.
>
> >Buh-bye Steve-o. Say hi to the trailer trash for us.
>
> Run away, Matt..... Booooo!
>
If he's running, I'm sure he has a stitch from laughing at you.
I will note that I am not deleting any of the quotes below.
(You see, folks, Canyon does this, because he thinks the quotes below
are non-sensical. He's delusional, of course.)
> --
>
> "You don't know what a margin call is. And yeah, I
> buy and sell stock a lot"MiltShookapr 28,2007http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?...
>
> "Put it this way; the only way to meet a margin call is to either put
> cash or assets into your account, or sell off some stock to bring the
> asset level back up. It's not possible to do either without
> experiencing a reduction in asset levels somewhere."
> --MiltShookApr 2007http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?...
>
> " If I empty out one account to meet the minimum equity level
> in another account, I must have lost some money somewhere"
> --MiltShookApr 2007http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?...
>
> "And if I sell stock, my asset level is
> reduced by the amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
> for more than I paid for it."MiltShookApr 2007http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?...
>
> "When you're margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset. If
> you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
> buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
> that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
> called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
> $10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
> fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
> for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
> --MiltShookApr 2007http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?...-
Seriously, Canyon, you crack me up.
robx...@nowhere.com
Man, this is gettting sad.
value: "a numerical quantity measured or assigned or computed"
The markets have value. Sheesh...
>So, so far, you've shown you don't understand much about the market.
So far, you've done nothing but play word games and have ignored
virtually everything said. This conversation is rapidly becoming
pointless.
Steve
IOW, Milt can't refute it either
>> >"If I have a margin call, I just dump some money into my margin
>> >account. It still belongs to me".
>>
>> <LOL> So where's the rebuttal, Matt? hard to refute the truth, isn't
>> it?
>
>It's just funny, is all. You think by dumping some of your liquid cash
>into an account containing borrowed money, you're not experiencing a
>loss of anything. The mind reels.
Sooooo, if I borrow $100 and put it into a savings account.... and
then I put another $100 in that account.... how much money will I
lose ,milt?
>> >ROFLMAO. Refute you, kiddo? An entire legion of book writers is out
>> >there
>> >just copying down your every word for the ultimate book of stupidity.
>>
>> <LOL> So where's the rebuttal, Matt? hard to refute the truth, isn't
>> it?
>
>Canyon, the only truth is that you're too damn dumb to know how dumb
>you are.
>>
>> >Buh-bye Steve-o. Say hi to the trailer trash for us.
>>
>> Run away, Matt..... Booooo!
>>
>If he's running, I'm sure he has a stitch from laughing at you.
>
>I will note that I am not deleting any of the quotes below.
Good...the more copies the merrier.
--
Milt Shook apr 28,2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
"Put it this way; the only way to meet a margin call is to either put
cash or assets into your account, or sell off some stock to bring the
asset level back up. It's not possible to do either without
experiencing a reduction in asset levels somewhere."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?&hl=en
" If I empty out one account to meet the minimum equity level
in another account, I must have lost some money somewhere"
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?&hl=en
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is
reduced by the amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
"When you're margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset. If
you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
robx...@nowhere.com
Ah, another endlightened individual who killfiles someone who dares
disagree with logical thought.
Matt
wrote:
No, Steve-o gets killfiled for being an idiot. You, I just disagree
with.
Matt
Constitutional American
> Stupid idiot like you is a comfort for all republican.
>
> You see,evil and bad nuts always oppose Bush.Good and decent people always
> like Bush.
>
>
> news:si5Zh.9728$3P3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> >I love it, when the economy is in the toilet during a republicscum';s reign
> >in office, then the morons claim that bush can't do anything about it,
> >however when the dow jones hits 13,000 (meaning the rich get richer, the
> >poor get poorer and the middle class goes to hell), then they are right
> >there crowing about it.
>
> > you republicscums are defa, dumb, and fucking stupid.
>
> > save the planet, kill a republican today
Just how much of this great economic "surge" is from war-profits from
Haliburton and the like, why is a city that was devastated by a
hurricane is still in such bad shape and how much better would the
economy be if over 400 trillion bucks hadn't been wasted?
Matt
wrote:
>
> value: "a numerical quantity measured or assigned or computed"
>
> The markets have value. Sheesh...
Um, I don't recall saying they don't. What I said was that they do
not "lose" or "gain" value. Because its true. Their value is simply
perceived. You were implying the stock market was a zero-sum
game, if I misread you, I apologize. It is most certainly not.
>
> >So, so far, you've shown you don't understand much about the market.
>
> So far, you've done nothing but play word games and have ignored
> virtually everything said. This conversation is rapidly becoming
> pointless.
If you say so. But the fact remains, you made a statement that wasn't
true.
Matt
Richard Burns
The rulers of the United Arab Emirates (where Haliburton is moving to)
are pro-Bush...whereas most folks in New Orleans are not..therefore,
they suffer.
Richard.
robx...@nowhere.com
Maybe I missed something but what specifically did he say that makes
him an "idiot"? He explained to you what "value" means in the context
of this discussion.
robx...@nowhere.com
You're confusing specific dollar amounts with numeric value. I'm
applying the definition I provided above. The value of the various
indexes can not be "perceived" as they have specific values at any
given time. If that numerical quanity is lower, it has indeed lost
value.
>
>>
>> >So, so far, you've shown you don't understand much about the market.
>>
>> So far, you've done nothing but play word games and have ignored
>> virtually everything said. This conversation is rapidly becoming
>> pointless.
>
>If you say so. But the fact remains, you made a statement that wasn't
>true.
So then you are saying the cite I provided days ago is not correct?
http://www.stumbleupon.com/tag/dow/
The article was originally sources from biz.yahoo.com If you read
about halfway through it, you'll see that the various indexes were all
effected by the dot com bubble.
Matt
wrote:
Sorry, you'd have to go back a few years. Steve-o is a well-known
Internet
idiot.
Matt
Steve
Actually, Matt can't refute anything I posted...and he doesn't like
having to admit it.
robx...@nowhere.com
That's well and good and all, but you called him an idiot and
killfiled him after what I described.
Matt
wrote:
Cause and effect. I'd called him an idiot and killfiled him long
before
he entered this conversation. If you check out Google Groups
(groups.google.com) you can search on his email address(es) and
see some of the stupid things he's gotten into.
Matt
robx...@nowhere.com
But haven't you been responding to him? That wouldn't make him
killfiled, would it?
Matt
wrote:
When you change your id, it avoids the killfile. Mine is set to
his name, which changes regularly. I had it set to his email
address, but he changes that too.
robx...@nowhere.com
That clears it up, thanks.