Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

113 Pages (Click to Jump) V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > »    
 
  
Reply to this topic

LOK, LOOKSMART LIMITED
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 24 2006, 12:28 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


QUOTE (quiktrade_1 @ Monday 24/04/06 08:45am)

Ah, Quiktrade_1 .....

You really are starting to amuse me ....

< The aim of your post was to get people thinking that Google is going to buy it and then discount it. Why bother bringing it up at all??? Just ramping IMHO >

When the question was put , to me, ......"Any chance of google taking over LOK"?

I replied NO and gave very strong reasons as to why I thought so. And you imply that I am saying the opposite? I am saying, my feeling is News Corporation, that's what I am saying.

< The aim of your post was to get people thinking that Google is going to buy it...>

I find that very strange ..... I find it strange also that your comparison of SOT and LOK (with one down, over 50% and the latter up 100% in value) over a period of time, is NOT "the real bottom line", over that, my stated period. HMMmm?? (If we both start with $10, mine's got to $20 & your's has gone to $5.00 .... That make it any easier for you?)

You say that you've ....< been watching the company just as long as you have and I believe it's heading in the wrong direction.>

Yet, I'm continually posting incredible figures relating to growth in the FindArticles content "bank" and have stated that unique "users" to the Verticals (the same sites that all 'draw' from FindArticles) has risen from 3M up to 9M from january, through to mid december, 2005 yet you don't seem to want to take this into account, for some unknown reason?

You take little notice of what's happening with, or, what "value" Furl.net is to Looksmart and it's partners, yet "traffic" again, is growing in alarming fashion here, too .... I wonder why?
Perhaps you, (as a "follower") may care to tell me, as to why? Let alone the increased traffic to many of the 181 Vertical sites, that you will just have to take my word for. Sorry! Can't share that!

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_...q=&url=furl.net

And, the growth of Articles?

Results 1 - 10 of about 15,300,000 from www.findarticles.com

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=si...nG=Search&meta=

Yes, an increase of over 50% in content, from it's stated 10M articles, as is shown on it's web site. That's remarkable and I ask you .....where are they coming from, and why??

And it was from contextualised ADS (placed around this very same content) that Google has only just reported 16% increased revenues from .... Yes, and of the $928M, they pay near on 80% of this $928M of it, onto their partner sites!!!

< Google Network Revenues -- Google's partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $928 million, or 41% of total revenues. This is a 59% increase over network revenues of $584 million generated in the first quarter of 2005 and a 16% increase over fourth quarter 2005 revenues of $799 million. >

UMMmm?? UP 16% on their Q4-2005 figures. (And TAC represented an approx. 78% or 32% of advertising revenues!!)

David Hills has Looksmart partnered with THREE Tier ONE publisher and media Co's already declared, yet you are saying ....... < Hills is taking shareholders up the garden path like the pied piper.>

And David Hills has lead the TOTAL sector in "ridding" it of the "click fraud" scourge, that was so prevelant under the "old" regime, prior to his joining the Co. He has done well. So much so, that in relation to "porn" on the net the Govt has asked the Co for full detail re; the intricate "workings" of Looksmart's NetNanny porn filtering software .....

Yes, LOK is not profitable .... But it is coming closer to being so, by the day!! LOK, with a current shareprice "value", of less that .07cps in the "old', is tremendous buying, IMHO. For there is little to NO downside from here in. David Hills has made sure of that too!!

Take your "blinkers" off, is my words to you, today.

Cheers !!

smile.gif
LC

 
quiktrade_1
post Posted: Apr 24 2006, 08:45 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 351


In reply to: LookingConfident on Sunday 23/04/06 10:30am

Again you miss the point. Nothing new here LC.

The aim of your post was to get people thinking that Google is going to buy it and then discount it. Why bother bringing it up at all??? Just ramping IMHO.

I'm not denying that LOK has risen 100% in the last 12 months. Good luck to all shareholders. The question is, why is it rising?? Certainly not based on fundamentals because the fundamentals of the company are shot. You will of course disagree with this statement. That's a given. The volume of LOK is pathetic and this is a big negative when you want to sell out.

You say that I haven't a clue relating to this company? Yeah right... I've been watching the company just as long as you have and I believe it's heading in the wrong direction. Hills is taking shareholders up the garden path like the pied piper. It will come to a head soon though. He's slowly been burning the companies cash and promises the world yet results aren't supportive of his incompetent efforts.

As far as having a go at SOT is concerned, go for it is all I can say. Every time you do it will give me the opportunity to point out a few comparitive points between SOT and LOK.. lol The first comparison is the bottom line.. SOT is profitable.. LOK is not profitable.. How do you like those beans???

Quik. graduated.gif

 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 23 2006, 10:30 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


In reply to: quiktrade_1 on Sunday 23/04/06 08:37am

< First it was Google then it was Rupert and now it's Google again??? >

LOL !!

If only you could read!!!

You see, never ever have I said, GOOGLE would be buying Looksmart. No one will be buying Looksmart, is my belief. But I do hold an opinion (and have stated it here on many, many ocassions) that NWS will buy a "controlling stake" in Looksmart. IT is only an opinion and I give my reasons as to why I believe that it is, a distinct possibilty. I buy a ticket, I get a ride!

I would remind you that when LOK was sub $4.00pps, you were "knocking" away too!! LOK did get to $8.00pps or, rose by 100% since those days ..... And in less than one year, too .....

You haven't "held" LOK shares for well over two years, (& you did well with them, you have said), yet you continually "chime in" here with "unsupported', (& at times, spiteful), negative opinions that do any reputation I have of you as a "judge" of a stocks, absolutely no favours at all.

You profess to be a T/A "expert" of some sort, but it is obvious that your "readings" have not helped you with Co's like SOT, that you do appear to have held since the $1.50cps levels. It is now "sub" $1.00pps ...... Your "mate" has "done a bundle" on stocks like AFT,BQT & now, QTK and I ask, where has you "TEA LEAVE READING" abilities been, when both you & he have needed them most? Your T/A readings still tell you LOOK is heading back to $1.31cps .... It traded @ $5.00pps, on friday in the US!! It traded as high as $5.75cps recently.

And LOK itself has risen by over 100% during this period. Yet, both of you post 10 to 20 times a day (elsewhere) chanting that old, "LOOKSMART IS A DOG", a childish & infantile, story!!

Now go back and read my previous post and see the reasons as to WHY I believe Google WON'T be buying Looksmart. I love REASONABLE discussions from a negative point of view, but yours need to improve a lot to warrant any further serious type replies to you, I'm afraid.

Cheers, and good luck with SOT.

smile.gif
LC

 
quiktrade_1
post Posted: Apr 23 2006, 08:37 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 351


In reply to: LookingConfident on Sunday 23/04/06 08:23am

First it was Google then it was Rupert and now it's Google again???

Sooner or later you'll realise that no one want's LOOK/LOK..

Who would want to buy a company that can't even break even let alone make a profit.

Quik. king.gif

 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 23 2006, 08:23 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


< Any chance of google taking over LOK? > was what Mikey_ asked over elsewhere???

I REPLIED:

On the surface, it would seem one of the most logical things, Google should do. Google have over $9 Billion in cash ATM and Looksmart, with a market cap of just $113M would not be an expensive purchase, IF it was for sale. And I say IF, for a number of reasons.

The CEO of Looksmart has said on a few ocassions, "Looksmart are NOT for sale". (In taking on the job, he has moved his family, "lock, stock & barrel" from their home in New York across to San Francisco and it's hard to imagine that his job was only about "dressing the Co up a little", for an eventual sale). But he did mention within a CC THAT he wouldn't discount a merger or, something to that effect ..... (similar, I recall).

Looksmart were then strongly "linked" with Newscorp (mid 2005) when Rupert Murdoch let it be known that NWS were ....... "talking of buying a "controlling stake" in a search engine, (WERE HIS VERY WORDS), in an interview. At this stage, there we not enough shares available in Looksmart, for that to occur. Looksmart then carried out a "reverse split" of 1 - 5 and suddenly, their 200 Million (maximum) number of permissable shares that could be issued, were now showing just over 22M, as being issued!! It, (IF a buy-in from NWS, could/should it be "on"), now becomes achievable.

What I am saying is, LOOK are not for sale! - But, why would NWS be interested in only buying a "controlling stake" in a search engine, if this was not the very reason, that they have to do it, this way??? (They have $2B to "spend" !!)

A close follower of Looksmart even said, (at the time) ....."we will either be acquired or, someone like Rupert Murdoch will take a major stake". I'm not so sure about being acquired, though, as I have reasoned above. From a CC (following a Newscorp report), when asked the question as to what he was doing in relation to search, his reply came: (Nov 11 2005)

'On Search' ??? Rupert replied, (to a querry on whether he could update on the possible deal mentioned in july) .."AHhh That has not been consumated" was his reply ... He then goes on with..."the one we were talking about is in fact, still in play" .... Then, following a slight pause, he says: "It was more to do with video search than ..." (Referring to Blinkz a video search Co they were also rumoured to buy, I feel & to get listeners off the scent) and when pressed, he then said "there are a lot of things happening but all are too sensitive, at this stage but I will say it was nothing big in terms of money" - (NWS did not go ahead with a purchase of Blinkz but since, now have a "deal" with them in the UK). He then summed it up with ..."We are a major project at it's very beginning.....We have a lot to do to intergrate all our sites, establishing a common navigation system"

On Oct 30th, (in a fortune.com interview), Rupert Murdoch said ..... "As we said, the grand plan is a work in progress"

On 6th of november, I wrote:

An investment of $250M by NEWS would see them buy some 33.33M shares from Looksmart to get that 'controlling interest', IF it's 'on'. LOOK currently have a little over 22M shares, since the reverse split last week. (NEWS would then hold 60% of issued shares. Surely enough for that 'controlling stake' as Rupert had spoke of, when he mentioned this, during the NEWS Q2 release.

On, Nov. 11th, I reported Rupert Murdoch saying:

"We're putting together a major network, if you like, of sites on the internet," & just two days ago, he had commented: "Whether we decide to call it a portal or a network, we don't know."

And, anyone who doubts the dramatic growth in Looksmart's FindArticles ( a "base" for current & future Vertical search sites) has "rocks in their head" .......

It was around August 23rd, when it was noted HERE ON THIS THREAD, that ........

"There are 688,000 results for a "Proquest Looksmart", (Google) search"

A check of this LINK (once again) will see where some of the growth of articles (now over 10M) into Looksmart's FindArticles and their new Vertical's, are (& will continue), coming....

from.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=p...art&btnG=Search

YES, It has now grown to about 1,880,000 or, nearly by nearly 3 times!! Since august!!!

__________________________________________________

I have just checked that "link", above ......and ......

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,170,000 for proquest looksmart. Yes, it's now grown to OVER, 3M articles!!!

And who do Proquest look after?? (Click on newspapers & magazines, here)

http://www.pqarchiver.com/

http://www.pqarchiver.com/n_home.html?type=n and ....

http://www.pqarchiver.com/m_home.html?type=m

And, it was "enjoy" (thanks), who posted this, elsewhere ...

NEWSPAPERS have no future without online and digital services, media executives heard at a World Association of Newspapers meeting in Madrid.

"We are getting the whole organisation ready for a digital future," said Simon Waldman, director of digital publishing at Guardian Newspapers, whose Guardian Unlimited site is by far the most popular British newspaper online site, ahead of The Sun, The Times and The Telegraph.

Within "six to seven years", the group planned to dedicate 80 per cent of its time to digital activities, compared to 20 per cent at present, Mr Waldman told the conference, entitled Beyond the Printed Word.

I hope that answers your "Google buys Looksmart", thoughts, well enough, Mike_ .......But, ONLY mho, of course!!

Cheers !!

smile.gif

LC

 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 21 2006, 10:25 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


And when Andrew Feinberg wrote the following, I quickly replied with my thoughts, below.
_______________________

http://blog.kiplinger.com/blog/archives/20...le_at_2000.html

Google at $2,000?

By Andrew Feinberg
January 06, 2006

I promise I won't write about Google on Monday, but today I simply can't avoid it. While thinking about Google, I take the plunge on Yahoo.

I don’t really want to mention Google (GOOG) that often, but then circumstances always intervene. It’s embarrassing for a value guy, but what the hell? The stock up $17.07 today to $468.31, another all-time high. One of the catalysts for the move is a Street.com piece about Caris & Co. analyst Mark Stahlman’s view that Google “could” reach $2,000 per share, if it claims a reasonable portion of its total addressable market. Stahlman says the digital-services market is currently worth $2 trillion and has the potential to expand to $10 trillion per year. The piece is worth reading, especially if you are bearish on the stock. I think it’s crazy to short Google, and not just because I happen to be bullish. It’s always nuts to short a stock simply because you think it’s overvalued. You need a catalyst to help drive the price down. And there is no apparent catalyst on the horizon. Google’s potential is enormous, and it’s impossible to know with certainty that it will fail to reach the high targets set by the bulls.

Stahlman makes it clear that $2,000 per share is not his target. But it might be truly achievable. As I’ve said before, Google could become the most valuable company on earth. As far as I can tell, the company keeps doing everything right. That’s a very impressive sign -- and it’s not something that has ever been said about Microsoft (MSFT). I also like the Bear Stearns analyst’s comment earlier in the week that Google is creating its own “ecosystem.” That may not be a bad way to think about the company. I enjoy spending time in the Google ecosystem. Experience has told me, on the other hand, that I want to spend as little time with Microsoft as possible.

As a writer and a money manager, using search has changed my life. And I associate that positive change with Google. It reminds me of Warren Buffett’s comment decades ago that one of the great brand benefits of Coca-Cola is that people associate having a Coke with happy childhood memories. And Coke turned out to be a great stock (KO) -- until it ran into a wall that even happy memories couldn’t knock down.

Given Google’s recent romp, the shares of Yahoo! (YHOO) -- which have had a much less dramatic move -- seem more and more attractive. After owning some for clients for many months, I finally took the plunge and bought some for me this morning. Someday soon, a leading financial publication will have to run a piece titled, “If You Like Google, You’ve Got to Love Yahoo.” It will make particularly enjoyable reading to those of us who own both stocks.

Positions: Long GOOG, YHOO; long MSFT in certain client accounts.
________________________

Reply ....

Terrific post!! But, I'm not so sure?

< You need a catalyst to help drive the price down. And there is no apparent catalyst on the horizon. >

Watch out for movement from publisher/media Co's in the next few weeks or, so .....

It has been said that "Content is King" and newspapers, magazines & TV web sites already have that content, and have (collectively), many many "user"/eyeballs.......

By networking their content, and "sharing" those "eyeballs" amongst each other, they WILL not only retain existing advertisors, they will soon start to regain some portion of those, already lost to Google, Yahoo and others ....

The print/media world do have an existing massive audience that (interactively), they can "drive" to their many websites, as a "collective", or, by using network type methodology. National "efforts" can involve readers all over the country. They are a force to be reckoned with... The recent "dip" in GOOG's shareprice value, was testimony of their punitive power, IMHO. (china ?). And Google will co-operate, too .... (The growth of the Net is accepted, as almost unstopable. Current "hype" is purely a distraction, I feel).

< Google Network Revenues -- Google's partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $928 million, or 41% of total revenues. This is a 59% increase over network revenues of $584 million generated in the first quarter of 2005 and a 16% increase over fourth quarter 2005 revenues of $799 million. >

UMMmm?? UP 16% on their Q4-2005 figures. (And TAC represented an approx. 78% or 32% of advertising revenues!!)

Yes, Adsense, makes CENTS!!!!

FWIW ....You may find this an interesting read .... But only MHO, of course.....

<Google snatched up a newspaper/online classifieds veteran right from the jaws of major newspaper companies to head up Google Local. Formerly of Classified Ventures' Homescape.com, Sam Sebastian is described as a new avenue to print advertising for Google.>

http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=...9351&mid=157681

Just my thoughts, only.

smile.gif
LC


 


LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 21 2006, 07:55 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3



Google Announces First Quarter 2006 Results
Thursday April 20, 4:01 pm ET

< Google Network Revenues -- Google's partner sites generated revenues, through AdSense programs, of $928 million, or 41% of total revenues. This is a 59% increase over network revenues of $584 million generated in the first quarter of 2005 and a 16% increase over fourth quarter 2005 revenues of $799 million. >

UMMmm?? UP 16% on their Q4-2005 figures. (And TAC represented an approx. 78% or 32% of advertising revenues!!)

Q1 Financial Summary

Google reported revenues of $2.25 billion for the quarter ended March 31, 2006, an increase of 79% compared to the first quarter of 2005 and an increase of 17% compared to the fourth quarter of 2005. Google reports its revenues, consistent with GAAP, on a gross basis without deducting traffic acquisition costs, or TAC. In the first quarter of 2006, TAC totaled $723 million, or 32% of advertising revenues.

Google reports operating income, net income, and earnings per share (EPS) on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis. The non-GAAP measures are described below and reconciled to the corresponding GAAP measures in the section below titled "About non-GAAP financial measures."

GAAP operating income for the first quarter of 2006 was $743 million, or 33% of revenues. This compares to GAAP operating income of $570 million, or 30% of revenues, in the fourth quarter of 2005. Non-GAAP operating income in the first quarter was $887 million, or 39% of revenues. This compares to non-GAAP operating income of $718 million, or 37% of revenues, in the fourth quarter.

GAAP net income for the first quarter was $592 million as compared to $372 million in the fourth quarter. Non-GAAP net income was $697 million, compared to $469 million in the fourth quarter.

GAAP EPS for the first quarter was $1.95 on 304 million diluted shares outstanding, compared to $1.22 for the fourth quarter, on 304 million diluted shares outstanding. Non-GAAP EPS was $2.29, compared to $1.54 in the fourth quarter.
Non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP net income, and non-GAAP EPS in the first quarter of 2006 are computed net of certain material items: stock-based compensation (SBC) and estimated plaintiffs' attorneys' fees related to the proposed settlement of the Lane's Gift class action lawsuit. In the first quarter, the charge related to stock-based compensation was $115 million as compared to $58 million in the fourth quarter of 2005, which was also excluded from non-GAAP calculations. Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees related to the proposed Lane's Gift class-action lawsuit settlement are estimated to be $30 million. In the fourth quarter of 2005, the contribution to the Google Foundation of $90 million was excluded from the calculation of non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP net income, and non-GAAP EPS. Tax benefits related to SBC charges, the estimated plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and the contribution to the Google Foundation have been excluded from non-GAAP calculations. The tax benefit related to SBC was $27 million in the first quarter and $14 million in the fourth quarter. The tax benefit related to the estimated plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the first quarter was $12 million. The tax benefit related to the contribution to the Google Foundation in the fourth quarter was $37 million. Reconciliations of non-GAAP measures to GAAP operating income, net income, and EPS are included at the end of this release.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060420/20060420005952.html?.v=1

LookSmart to Report First Quarter Results, May 4

smile.gif

LC


 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 20 2006, 07:40 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


LOOKSMART LTD (NasdaqNM:LOOK)
Last Trade: $5.00pps
Trade Time: 4:00PM ET
Change: Up 0.04 (0.81%)
Prev Close: 4.96
Open: 4.97
Bid: 4.78 x 100
Ask: 5.16 x 100
1y Target Est: 6.63

Day's Range: 4.95 - 5.00
52wk Range: 2.75 - 5.75
Volume: 46,655
Avg Vol (3m): 124,930
Market Cap: 113.98M

< In addition to purchasing keywords on Google and Yahoo, marketers also are buying pay-per-click ads on "secondary" and "niche" search engines, like Ask.com, Kanoodle and LookSmart, Kingdon said. >

http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cf...e&art_aid=42341

And .....

Merrill Lynch Predicts Online Ads Will Overtake Magazine Advertising This Year


Yesterday Merrill Lynch said it believes the Internet will take in more advertising dollars in 2006 than will magazines……………..Fortunately, virtually every major magazine publisher is deeply involved in digital initiatives, trying to create business models that take advantage of putting their content on the Web--or, in the case of some magazines, actually replacing the print edition with an online publication.


NOT HARD TO "WORK IT OUT" FROM HERE, I (honestly) FEEL......

Results 1 - 10 of about 32,800,000 from www.findarticles.com

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=si...le+Search&meta=

smile.gif

LC

 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 19 2006, 07:53 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


In reply to: LookingConfident on Tuesday 18/04/06 10:16am

In my previous post, I wrote .....

But, it is hard for MANY to understand, I do realise!!

Of course, it would mean “nothing” to some, that the Wespac banner shown here, (in an OZ result) is “targeting” an Australasian audience. Check the AD link, I’ve provided. (below). So, where has it come from? There is NO more of Looksmart Australia these days, as I am led to believe?

And it mean very little, or, “nothing” that Google Adsense also “target” the same region, again, all within Looksmart’s Verticals. (Those that I’ve checked).

http://www.looksmartrunning.com/ (These banners do "rotate", so "trust me"!!! LOL !!)

http://www.westpacinfo.com.au/platinum/def....cfm?source=B37

I have just found this "other" banner here ( for realestate.com.au) and MOST interesting ..... (check the Google "contextual", too!!)

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2730

So, what's so "special" about realestate.com.au you may ask? Just check WHO their "partner sites" are, here!!!!!

http://www.realestate.com.au/

Maybe "Rupert" even "owns" the above site? You should check that out HERE, too, possibly?? ........

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=re...le+Search&meta=

LOL !!!

It's great to see a little "spending" on ADS, on a Looksmart property!!!

CHEERS TO HOLDERS!!

smile.gif

LC



 
LookingConfident
post Posted: Apr 18 2006, 12:23 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,797
Thanks: 3


QUOTE (quiktrade_1 @ Tuesday 18/04/06 11:24am)

And thanks for your "well wishes", Quiktrade_1 ......

"If you build it, he will come." was that voice Ray Kinsella the corn farmer heard ......

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/

Of course, whilst David Hills hasn't quite admitted 'hearing voices', it must be said, he certainly IS building it!!

To buy now (@ less than .07cps, in the "old") is smart, Google Group members would say. They know what's going on and it's exciting "stuff", that's for sure!!

You see, IF you were able to get access to ONE HUNDRED MILLION unique monthly "users", to 'flit' through your properties (many even daily), the chances are (as they make their choices of article/s to read during their journey), they will "click on" one of your contextual ADS, on some of their "visits".

Of course, Looksmart haven't exactly said the above, as such. No, they are "collective" thoughts of the "group" who kind-of understand the significance of a constant (daily) supply of relevent articles, news, etc ......

I mean, how relevant is a "cluster" of articles purely based on "speed sliding Snails" from The Amazon, to you? Do you really want to know how fast they can actually go? Probably not. But rest assured, there are "enthusiasts" in the world who not only have an interest in these "Lightning Fast" snails, they "click on ADS" and book their travel arrangements from those very advertisers, (specifically contextualised on Looksmart's index page), where many "grouped" articles on this "topic", are contained. Yes, as you know ........... Readers are "targeted".

Looksmart hasn't a "speed sliding Snails" Vertical, as yet. But they have began with a total of 181 such (topic specific) sites, for starters. No doubt they will release more, when, "the cat is out of the bag". Absolutely, no doubts there! And I do see Looksmart "adding" messaging, too, soon. (Thanks to "Tiomike" LOL !!)

It was respected industry "expert" Bambi Francisco who allowed me to introduce her to a Looksmart "cycling" Vertical, some time back, when she had problems finding "info" on a certain mountain bike's weight, etc

I think she was impressed! So much so, she has even included some of my thoughts in the Recent Comments section, on her blog, here..... (on McClatchy's Triangle)

http://bambi.blogs.com/

Some how, (with Bambi) I feel confident in saying (that in relation to Looksmart and her), the "pennies may have dropped" .... What do you think?

smile.gif
LC

ps; < LOOK's like they're lining up to buy it now LC >

No, the "they" you are referring to are the "sheep" who are said to be some 80% of the market! They are mostly "followers" ..... The sheppards make the initial "moves" for them.

"They", then follow!![B][/B]

 
 


113 Pages (Click to Jump) V  « < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING