Page 2 of 3
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 14:54
by Highway Star
Mister Moose wrote:Before you wax on about your analysis of E2M's website any further, remember it is essentially a 4 color brochure. It is what they want you to see/read. It isn't meant to inform ski enthusiasts on the next aquisition strategy, it is meant to entice investors and give credibility to the firm. You have to dig deeper than that to get any real insight to all the hypotheticals being floated here.
You are reading their "snow report" of "packed powder", and believing it.
Ignoring the fundementals and drinking the koolaid always gets you into trouble.
I think you should go back and read where
I said very clearly at the start of this discussion that they could be lieing their asses off.......
I don't trust texans, period. However, it seems that on the surface, these folks are at least saying stuff that makes sense.....if they actually do that, who knows.
If you want go go dig up some E2M/2M/Eiger history, go right ahead.
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 15:16
by Mister Moose
Highway Star wrote: Mister Moose wrote:Before you wax on about your analysis of E2M's website any further, remember it is essentially a 4 color brochure. It is what they want you to see/read. It isn't meant to inform ski enthusiasts on the next aquisition strategy, it is meant to entice investors and give credibility to the firm. You have to dig deeper than that to get any real insight to all the hypotheticals being floated here.
You are reading their "snow report" of "packed powder", and believing it.
Ignoring the fundementals and drinking the koolaid always gets you into trouble.
I think you should go back and read where
I said very clearly at the start of this discussion that they could be lieing their asses off.......
I don't trust texans, period. However, it seems that on the surface, these folks are at least saying stuff that makes sense.....if they actually do that, who knows.
If you want go go dig up some E2M/2M/Eiger history, go right ahead.
They could be lying, they could be making sense, they could build this, they might build that.
Highway Star wrote: I have no doubt that Killington may be sold to another investor at a massive profit after 5-10 years
Uh, no doubts... may?
I have no doubt that you cover both sides in your posts.
I have no doubt that you may cover both sides in your posts.
See the difference?
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 15:55
by Highway Star
Mister Moose wrote:Highway Star wrote: Mister Moose wrote:Before you wax on about your analysis of E2M's website any further, remember it is essentially a 4 color brochure. It is what they want you to see/read. It isn't meant to inform ski enthusiasts on the next aquisition strategy, it is meant to entice investors and give credibility to the firm. You have to dig deeper than that to get any real insight to all the hypotheticals being floated here.
You are reading their "snow report" of "packed powder", and believing it.
Ignoring the fundementals and drinking the koolaid always gets you into trouble.
I think you should go back and read where
I said very clearly at the start of this discussion that they could be lieing their asses off.......
I don't trust texans, period. However, it seems that on the surface, these folks are at least saying stuff that makes sense.....if they actually do that, who knows.
If you want go go dig up some E2M/2M/Eiger history, go right ahead.
They could be lying, they could be making sense, they could build this, they might build that.
Highway Star wrote: I have no doubt that Killington may be sold to another investor at a massive profit after 5-10 years
Uh, no doubts... may?
I have no doubt that you cover both sides in your posts.
I have no doubt that you may cover both sides in your posts.
See the difference?
You really need to stop argueing with me for the sake of argueing, especially over stupid semantics. I type fairly fast and don't totally grammar check everything I post.
There is nothing wrong with the quoted sentence above, it's just an open ended statement. I would not be suprised if they resold the place in 10 years time.
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 17:23
by MrsG
Highway Star wrote:Mister Moose wrote:Highway Star wrote: Mister Moose wrote:Before you wax on about your analysis of E2M's website any further, remember it is essentially a 4 color brochure. It is what they want you to see/read. It isn't meant to inform ski enthusiasts on the next aquisition strategy, it is meant to entice investors and give credibility to the firm. You have to dig deeper than that to get any real insight to all the hypotheticals being floated here.
You are reading their "snow report" of "packed powder", and believing it.
Ignoring the fundementals and drinking the koolaid always gets you into trouble.
I think you should go back and read where
I said very clearly at the start of this discussion that they could be lieing their asses off.......
I don't trust texans, period. However, it seems that on the surface, these folks are at least saying stuff that makes sense.....if they actually do that, who knows.
If you want go go dig up some E2M/2M/Eiger history, go right ahead.
They could be lying, they could be making sense, they could build this, they might build that.
Highway Star wrote: I have no doubt that Killington may be sold to another investor at a massive profit after 5-10 years
Uh, no doubts... may?
I have no doubt that you cover both sides in your posts.
I have no doubt that you may cover both sides in your posts.
See the difference?
You really need to stop argueing with me for the sake of argueing, especially over stupid semantics. I type fairly fast and don't totally grammar check everything I post.
There is nothing wrong with the quoted sentence above, it's just an open ended statement. I would not be suprised if they resold the place in 10 years time.
Arguing semantics . . . !?!??!?!?? . . . just what did you mean by this comment????
"Oil MONEY......what don't you get? This is a real estate company/fund, of course. But a large majority of the money being invested in it
probably comes from large and small oil companies, or investors that made money in the oil industry. This is texas, afterall
Probably . . .what kind of comment is that!?!??!?!?! HS, as I've stated before . . . your effort is impeccable, but, I think it "may" be time for you to re-evaluate your content!!
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:00
by Mister Moose
Highway Star wrote:
You really need to stop argueing with me for the sake of argueing, especially over stupid semantics. I type fairly fast and don't totally grammar check everything I post.
There is nothing wrong with the quoted sentence above, it's just an open ended statement. I would not be suprised if they resold the place in 10 years time.
My points that seem to elude you, but others seem to get are:
You write endlessly on the business side of the new owners and existing management, but with no apparent business acumen.
You frequently make ambiguous statements.
You frequently make unresearched statements.
When called on it, you backpedal and point out your own ambiguity.
I have never "argued" with you for the sake of semantics. I have tried to get you to treat people better, and express yourself more clearly, and stop talking about things you have no foundation in. The fact that you think that it's just "semantics" means you are one of those people "that don't get it."
When you type fast, you are also thinking fast. That is not the same as thinking well, which takes more time. Take a breath and choose your words more carefully.
You have made 30 posts in the last 24 hours. That's more than enough Highway Star for anyone.
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:06
by Highway Star
MrsG wrote:Highway Star wrote:Mister Moose wrote:Highway Star wrote: Mister Moose wrote:Before you wax on about your analysis of E2M's website any further, remember it is essentially a 4 color brochure. It is what they want you to see/read. It isn't meant to inform ski enthusiasts on the next aquisition strategy, it is meant to entice investors and give credibility to the firm. You have to dig deeper than that to get any real insight to all the hypotheticals being floated here.
You are reading their "snow report" of "packed powder", and believing it.
Ignoring the fundementals and drinking the koolaid always gets you into trouble.
I think you should go back and read where
I said very clearly at the start of this discussion that they could be lieing their asses off.......
I don't trust texans, period. However, it seems that on the surface, these folks are at least saying stuff that makes sense.....if they actually do that, who knows.
If you want go go dig up some E2M/2M/Eiger history, go right ahead.
They could be lying, they could be making sense, they could build this, they might build that.
Highway Star wrote: I have no doubt that Killington may be sold to another investor at a massive profit after 5-10 years
Uh, no doubts... may?
I have no doubt that you cover both sides in your posts.
I have no doubt that you may cover both sides in your posts.
See the difference?
You really need to stop argueing with me for the sake of argueing, especially over stupid semantics. I type fairly fast and don't totally grammar check everything I post.
There is nothing wrong with the quoted sentence above, it's just an open ended statement. I would not be suprised if they resold the place in 10 years time.
Arguing semantics . . . !?!??!?!?? . . . just what did you mean by this comment????
"Oil MONEY......what don't you get? This is a real estate company/fund, of course. But a large majority of the money being invested in it
probably comes from large and small oil companies, or investors that made money in the oil industry. This is texas, afterall
Probably . . .what kind of comment is that!?!??!?!?! HS, as I've stated before . . . your effort is impeccable, but, I think it "may" be time for you to re-evaluate your content!!
Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? I can't say "probably" about something? I'm not allowed to make an informed guess????
Would you care to look at the data???
About 25% of Texas's ~$1 trillion gross state product comes from the Petroleum and Chemical Industries:
http://www.bidc.state.tx.us/Iprofiles.htm
Those are the two big ones.....and oil companies have been making record profits. Chem is closely related to oil. There are 11 blllionares living in Dallas, where E2M is based.......where do you think these guys are making the money...???
Of course OIL is a big player...........
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:13
by Highway Star
Mister Moose wrote:Highway Star wrote:
You really need to stop argueing with me for the sake of argueing, especially over stupid semantics. I type fairly fast and don't totally grammar check everything I post.
There is nothing wrong with the quoted sentence above, it's just an open ended statement. I would not be suprised if they resold the place in 10 years time.
My points that seem to elude you, but others seem to get are:
You write endlessly on the business side of the new owners and existing management, but with no apparent business acumen.
You frequently make ambiguous statements.
You frequently make unresearched statements.
When called on it, you backpedal and point out your own ambiguity.
I have never "argued" with you for the sake of semantics. I have tried to get you to treat people better, and express yourself more clearly, and stop talking about things you have no foundation in. The fact that you think that it's just "semantics" means you are one of those people "that don't get it."
When you type fast, you are also thinking fast. That is not the same as thinking well, which takes more time. Take a breath and choose your words more carefully.
You have made 30 posts in the last 24 hours. That's more than enough Highway Star for anyone.
Look, asswipe, it's an
INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD.....!!!!! I'm going to spew, conjecture, make logical leaps, speculate, etc,
AS MUCH AS I DAMN WELL PLEASE. WHY DON'T YOU SHUT THE HELL UP, YOU FUC-KING TOOL, AND STOP TELLING ME HOW TO POST ON THE DAMN INTERNET....?!?!?!?!! YOU'RE A JACKASS!!!!!!
I qualify my statements with words like "might", "may", "perhaps", so that those of you who have a command of the the english language and reading comprehension skills good enough to score higher than 300 on the SAT verbal can fuc-king understand that I am making my own analysis based on the limited time and information available. I have PLENTY of business sense, but I have clearly stated on multiple occasions that I have little formal training. I'm not stating anything as fact, nor am I promising anybody that any thing will happen.
MISTER MOOSE: GET A CLUE!!!!
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:25
by Mister Moose
Highway Star wrote:
Look, asswipe, it's an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD.....!!!!! I'm going to spew, conjecture, make logical leaps, speculate, etc, AS MUCH AS I DAMN WELL PLEASE.
We know.
Highway Star wrote:
I qualify my statements with words like "might", "may", "perhaps", so that those of you who have a command of the the english language and reading comprehension skills good enough to score higher than 300 on the SAT verbal can fuc-king understand that I am making may own analysis based on the limited time and information available. I have PLENTY of business sense, but I have clearly stated on multiple occasions that I have little formal training. I'm not stating anything as fact, nor am I promising anybody that any thing will happen. So just SHUT THE FU-CK UP!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure that those of us that scored higher than 300 on the SAT verbal can write better than that. The only one that limits your time to write is... you.
On what basis do you feel that you have PLENTY of business sense? Have you ever owned your own business?
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:29
by Highway Star
[quote="Mister Moose"][quote="Highway Star"]
Look, asswipe, it's an
INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD.....!!!!!
I'm going to spew, conjecture, make logical leaps, speculate, etc,
AS MUCH AS I DAMN WELL PLEASE. [/quote]
We know.
[quote="Highway Star"]
I qualify my statements with words like "might", "may", "perhaps", so that those of you who have a command of the the english language and reading comprehension skills good enough to score higher than 300 on the SAT verbal can fuc-king understand that I am making may own analysis based on the limited time and information available. I have PLENTY of business sense, but I have clearly stated on multiple occasions that I have little formal training. I'm not stating anything as fact, nor am I promising anybody that any thing will happen. So just SHUT THE FU-CK UP!!!!!![/quote]
I'm pretty sure that those of us that scored higher than 300 on the SAT verbal can write better than that. The only one that limits your time to write is... you.
On what basis do you feel that you have PLENTY of business sense? Have you ever owned your own business?[/quote]
Just shut the fuc-king hell up, tool boy, you are gay beyond all reason. I don't answer to you.....you think I need to justify myself to you? You have got to be legally retarded or demented.
:roll
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:39
by Mister Moose
Highway Star wrote:
Just shut the fuc-king hell up, tool boy, you are gay beyond all reason. I don't answer to you.....you think I need to justify myself to you? You have got to be legally retarded.
I guess if you can't answer the question, you just fill the space with larger type.
Yes, if you want to be taken seriously, you do need to stand by your statements, and answer questions about them. If you don't want to be taken seriously, I'll stop asking you questions.
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:44
by Highway Star
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:44
by rogman
I think HS is right on this one. [Edit: but I am tired of his immature rants. HS: Grow up, or go to Stowe, or just go away] Anyway:
1. When you are talking about investment decisions and the future, use of weasel words is a time honored tradition.
2. The people that invest in these funds have serious money. Do they care about skiing? Probably not. Do they care about Killington? I doubt it. So what? Pres Smith ain't walkin' back through that door any time soon. Get over it.
3. If you buy a business, what you pay is based on past ROI, and on projected future earnings. Killington is a "depressed" business. It has been run into the ground by ASC. Only a moron would keep doing the same things and expect a different result. That doesn't mean that the new owners will spend a ton of money, only that they will do something different than what ASC has done. I think ASC has pretty well explored the bottom feeder, spend no money, approach lately. The new owners won't choose that as a turn around stategy. What I expect is that they will spend what it takes to give the place a buzz again, and in 5 years or so, cash out. Those new owners will do something different to improve profits. Jesus, they'll probably go back to the ASC way of doing business. See what you have to look forward to?
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:45
by Dr Z
[quote="Highway Star"][quote="Mister Moose"][quote="Highway Star"]
Look, asswipe, it's an
INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD.....!!!!!
I'm going to spew, conjecture, make logical leaps, speculate, etc,
AS MUCH AS I DAMN WELL PLEASE. [/quote]
We know.
[quote="Highway Star"]
I qualify my statements with words like "might", "may", "perhaps", so that those of you who have a command of the the english language and reading comprehension skills good enough to score higher than 300 on the SAT verbal can fuc-king understand that I am making may own analysis based on the limited time and information available. I have PLENTY of business sense, but I have clearly stated on multiple occasions that I have little formal training. I'm not stating anything as fact, nor am I promising anybody that any thing will happen. So just SHUT THE FU-CK UP!!!!!![/quote]
I'm pretty sure that those of us that scored higher than 300 on the SAT verbal can write better than that. The only one that limits your time to write is... you.
On what basis do you feel that you have PLENTY of business sense? Have you ever owned your own business?[/quote]
Just shut the fuc-king hell up, tool boy, you are gay beyond all reason. I don't answer to you.....you think I need to justify myself to you? You have got to be legally retarded or demented.
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:46
by SkiDork
HS - so you're basically in broadcast mode. OK. cool.
Posted: May 2nd, '07, 18:51
by Highway Star
rogman wrote:I think HS is right on this one.
1. When you are talking about investment decisions and the future, use of weasel words is a time honored tradition.
2. The people that invest in these funds have serious money. Do they care about skiing? Probably not. Do they care about Killington? I doubt it. So what? Pres Smith ain't walkin' back through that door any time soon. Get over it.
3. If you buy a business, what you pay is based on past ROI, and on projected future earnings. Killington is a "depressed" business. It has been run into the ground by ASC. Only a moron would keep doing the same things and expect a different result. That doesn't mean that the new owners will spend a ton of money, only that they will do something different than what ASC has done. I think ASC has pretty well explored the bottom feeder, spend no money, approach lately. The new owners won't choose that as a turn around stategy. What I expect is that they will spend what it takes to give the place a buzz again, and in 5 years or so, cash out. Those new owners will do something different to improve profits. Jesus, they'll probably go back to the ASC way of doing business. See what you have to look forward to?
Thanks man.....you always have something wise to say.