posted
this board hasn't been this active in a long time. it seems if i go an hour without reading it there is another page or two waiting to be read lol.
-------------------- I'M GONNA BE RICH BEFORE I'M 30!!!! Posts: 502 | From: spring lake, nc, usa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ghosty: Let the bashers bash,,,, we will be in dollar land soon. They will wish they held.
I agree 100% ghosty! You're pretty slick.
Do you have a short attention span or are you trying to start an argument? You already quoted me above in this very thread. No need to repeat yourself.
No argument! I have just come to undestand that you've know all along that this is a pure winner & probably have more shares than most of us! My hat's off to you.
Why thank you.
You're very welcome! Now for purely selfesh reasons I hope you make serious mint!
quote:Originally posted by roadrunnerv8383: ghosty if your so unhappy with qbid, and think its a scam. why not just sell your shares?
They're free shares.
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by forfun: I checked the link and can't confirm the buy was complete.
The link takes you to 1BigTips posting of the June 15, 2004 press release. The detail about Q acquiring a film package is right under the #3 part in the PR about finance. They worded that they have acquired a large package. This is different than the 4000 movie title deal where they used the terminology "finalizing."
U4's Q-Mobiles point is number 11 on his list. It's easiest just to go to the page with the post and do the edit "find" function for mobile. That'll take you right to it. Matt
Posts: 1504 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Aho is a Native American expression, similar to Amen or I agree with that. An expression of affirmation.
I'm not Native American via bloodlines that I know of, but I resonate with some of their beliefs. That expression just popped out.
Hmm firefly sounds like it is a native's name.LOL
dz
quote:Originally posted by firefly: Denzen what is aho? lol
Posts: 1431 | From: Boulder, CO | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Clyde Crashcup
unregistered
posted
Wall Street News Alert: High Performance Stocks for Traders! February 10, 2005 via COMTEX
February 10, 2005
Weston, FLA., Feb 10, 2005 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) --
Wall Street News Alert`s "stocks to watch" this morning are: Airtrax, Inc. (OTCBB: AITX), eDiets.com Inc. (NASDAQ: DIET), Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: MSPD), Triangle Multi-media Inc. (OTC: QBID) and General Growth Properties (NYSE: GGP).
Stocks showing interesting activity yesterday at the close of the regular trading day were: eDiets.com Inc. (NASDAQ: DIET) up 5.7% on 1.9 million shares traded, Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: MSPD) up 3.6% on 1.3 million shares traded, Triangle Multi-media Inc. (OTC: QBID) up 3.3% on 132.6 million shares traded and General Growth Properties (NYSE: GGP) up 2.5% on 1.4 million shares traded.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Crashcup: Wall Street News Alert: High Performance Stocks for Traders! February 10, 2005 via COMTEX
Stocks showing interesting activity yesterday at the close of the regular trading day were: eDiets.com Inc. (NASDAQ: DIET) up 5.7% on 1.9 million shares traded, Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: MSPD) up 3.6% on 1.3 million shares traded, Triangle Multi-media Inc. (OTC: QBID) up 3.3% on 132.6 million shares traded and General Growth Properties (NYSE: GGP) up 2.5% on 1.4 million shares traded.
Wonder how much they were paid to include QBID?
Posts: 610 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ghosty: Let the bashers bash,,,, we will be in dollar land soon. They will wish they held.
You're absolutly right ghosty! We will see this stock hit a buck. Hope you were able to get all the shares you wanted. I knew you were scambling to buy & who can blame you. Broadcasting National TV Networks just don't trade for less than a dollar a share.
I totally agree that there is no need for personal attacks. My feeling about QBID is that it will be more of a show producer and syndicator than anything else, and will make relatively very limited inroads in that. The sentiment in America is not to broadcast a bunch of gay shows where children can see them. Note the vote in the last election. All gay initiative for marriage, in about 13 states, were soundly defeated. The pay-channel will possible have a limited audience, though. They will never be a "Broadcasting National TV Network", and here is why. "Broadcasting National TV Networks" is limited to "over-the-air", such as NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc, something you don't need cable for. Also, a "network" is a group of affiliates who all identify themselves as "an NBC station", etc. Even a number of otherwise unreleated local channels don't identify themselves as part of a "network" based on the fact they may all air the same syndicated shows . Many channels, for instance, some who are also part of a network (such as NBC, CBS, etc.) carry syndicated shows (unrelated to their particular network, and shown in time slots that the network leaves to them to program), such as Andy Griffith, Jeopardy, Entertainment Tonight, whatever.....
That doesn't make Andy Griffith or Jeopardy a broadcast network, nor does it make the individual local stations and/or local cable provider part of a network simply because they all carry the same syndicated shows. Being a "syndicated show" is actually the opposite of being a "network show" (though the show may originally have been a network show, i.e. Andy Griffith, Seinfeld, etc.).
Posts: 277 | From: San Jose, CA USA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As whizknock said, "no genuine television networks trade for under $1/share" - hence why QBID is .003 LOL
Posts: 610 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Voters pass all 11 bans on gay marriage Ballot initiatives pave the way for new court battles
Nathan Breithaupt of Portland, Ore., cheers as election numbers start to favor a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in his state on Tuesday at the election night headquarters for the initiative.
Elated by an 11-for-11 rejection of gay marriage in state elections, conservatives Wednesday urged Congress to follow suit by approving a federal constitutional amendment that would extend the prohibition nationwide.
The state victories “are a prelude to the real battle,” said Matt Daniels, whose Alliance for Marriage has pushed for congressional action. “Ultimately, only our Federal Marriage Amendment will protect marriage.”
Gay activists, though dejected after the overwhelming rebuff, vowed to keep fighting.
Rights activists: ‘Right hook to the chin’ Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force described the election results as “a right hook to the chin ... but certainly not a knockout.” Said Oregon activist Roey Thorpe, “On the road to equality and freedom, there are always setbacks.”
Oregon represented gay-rights groups’ best hope for victory, but an amendment banning same-sex marriage prevailed there with 57 percent of the votes, leaving some activists in tears. Similar bans won by larger margins in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah.
More than 20 million Americans voted on the measures, which triumphed overall by a 2-to-1 ratio. In the four Southern states, the amendments received at least three-quarters of the votes, including 86 percent in Mississippi; the closest outcome besides Oregon was in Michigan, where the ban got 59 percent.
Federal amendment ahead? Conservative leaders depicted the result as a nationwide repudiation of the November 2003 ruling by the high court in Massachusetts legalizing same-sex marriage there. No other state has followed suit.
“Christians here and around the nation consider this a great victory for the institution of marriage,” said Rod Parsley, pastor of World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio. “We had to stand up and say, ‘Enough is enough.”’
Robert Knight of the conservative Culture and Family Institute said the results should motivate Congress to reconsider a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage — a measure that earlier this year failed to get the needed two-thirds support in the House and Senate because of strong Democratic opposition.
“Historically, amendments to the Constitution only happen after consensus is reached — they don’t get passed when conflict is raging,” Knight said. “But now we’re moving quickly toward consensus. A lot of Democrats may have a change of heart.”
Activists on both sides say the state amendments approved Tuesday — and similar measures adopted previously in six other states — guard against state court rulings like the one in Massachusetts. However, the newly approved bans could be overturned by a U.S. Supreme Court decision that cited the federal Constitution, which is why conservatives want an anti-gay marriage amendment passed by Congress.
Lawsuits seeking marriage rights or challenging bans on same-sex marriage have been filed in Oregon, Nebraska, Washington, California, New York and New Jersey. Georgia’s newly approved ban will be challenged soon by lawyers contending that the measure’s ballot summary did not convey its potentially sweeping impact on same-sex couples.
Voters decide scores of ballot initiatives
Lambda Legal, which is involved in many of the lawsuits, urged gay couples to turn to the courts only if there was a reasonable chance of victory.
“We’ll discourage additional litigation if it runs a serious risk of resulting in a loss that could set us back many years,” Lambda Legal attorney David Buckel said in a strategy memo.
2 million affected While the amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon deal only with marriage, the measures in the other eight states also ban civil unions.
According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, there are roughly 2 million people in those states who live in households headed by same-sex couples and could be harmed by the amendments — including state university employees whose domestic partnership benefits could be in jeopardy in Michigan, Ohio and Utah.
Despite losing the marriage votes, gay-rights groups found a few heartening election results.
In Massachusetts, despite conservative efforts to unseat them, all incumbent legislators who supported equal treatment for same-sex couples won re-election. In Cincinnati, the nation’s only city with a ban on laws supporting gay rights, voters repealed that 1993 measure.
Idaho and North Carolina voters elected their first openly gay legislators, and an openly gay Hispanic woman, Lupe Valdez, was elected county sheriff in Dallas.
Election 2004 is over and it does not look good for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. In state after state constitutional amendments were passed to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Some of those states also restrict the rights of gays and lesbians and may prevent civil unions. Here's a run down of how the states voted on each measure.
Arkansas
Ballot wording: Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage.Result: Passed 75% to 25%
Georgia
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman.
Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.Result: Passed 77% to 23%.
Kentucky
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.Result: Passed: 75% to 25%.
Michigan
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.
Mississippi
The measure amends the state constitution to read: Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.
Montana
The measure amends the state constitution to read: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.
North Dakota
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect.Result: Passed 73% to 24%.
Ohio
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.Result: Passed 62% to 38%.
Oklahoma
Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.Result: Passed 76% to 24%.
Oregon
The measure would amend the state constitution to read: It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.Result: Passed 57% to 43%.
Utah
The measure amends the state constitution to read, 1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. 2. No other domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage. Results: Passed 66% to 34%.
Posts: 610 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bottom Line to me is: No matter what any of us say here, what will happen with Q will happen Good or Bad for Investors. I see no need in getting folks we do not even know mad at each other. If we all were in a room together would we be physically fighting with each other or what? Relax people, enjoy what you have and give thanks for it.
Posts: 208 | From: Florence, SC, USA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
last year, viacom's ceo and chairman said he believed a gay network would be worth $1 billion dollars. within 2 weeks after that qbid's pps shot up to .028 a share. if the worlds largest multimedia company believes a network targeted to this certain market is worth $1 billion dollars. thats all i need to know. viacom owns near half a dozen channels and networks. viacom was supposed to launch logo, then they moved back thier launch date from feb 14th to june 30th. so that buys qtv more time. i think its possible viacom may buy out qtv one day.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by roadrunnerv8383: last year, viacom's ceo and chairman said he believed a gay network would be worth $1 billion dollars. within 2 weeks after that qbid's pps shot up to .028 a share. if the worlds largest multimedia company believes a network targeted to this certain market is worth $1 billion dollars. thats all i need to know. viacom owns near half a dozen channels and networks. viacom was supposed to launch logo, then they moved back thier launch date from feb 14th to june 30th. so that buys qtv more time. i think its possible viacom may buy out qtv one day.
So how many shares of QBID are there?
Posts: 277 | From: San Jose, CA USA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ghosty, have you thought about getting a life, a job, anything productive? It might help you in your present condition.
Posts: 208 | From: Florence, SC, USA | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How could some of you believe there are more shares being dumped into the market by the company???? Think about it! QBID recently completed a buyback of shares, so why would they go and dump more at a much lower PPS?
Posts: 798 | From: New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So they say. Not bashing, but they DO NOT REPORT.
Actually, nobody in the general public can be sure as to how many O/S and A/S there really is. Q does not have to inform anybody if the O/S and A/S are increased. That is the whole problem!
And, besides the company stating that they were going to buy back X amount of shares, where can we see that they actually did?
The answer is simply, we can't be sure. The only way you can refute this is with blind faith.
Q will see HUGE movement once they become reporting if there is real substance to the company.
JMHO & GLTA
-------------------- A day without dreams is just a nightmare! Posts: 1702 | From: Michigan | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your point shows very much how in each of these areas there is more then the national average o gay people supporting the gay movement and hence in all these cases more then 10% that would possibly buy the programming. Your numbers do nothing but strengthen the fact that this will work out.
Just because 90% of the population that are not gay voted against Gay marriage, doesn't mean the channel will not succeed. the fact is actually quite opposite. the more you try to oppress or suppress something. the more you will see the fight in the opposite way.
look at the fact that less the 100 years ago Women did not have the right to vote and were denied time after time. that did not make the fact go away that they had the right to vote. Same with the Black community. The same will be true with the Gay community whether you like it or not. they are people and have human rights that in fact are being violated and in time will be rectified.
but thanks for the DD on the numbers that is a very informative and positive thing for the Q to see how much support is out there.
Remember all we need to have is .5 of one percent of the Gay population subscribe to make this thing fly. Is that possible? you can bank on it.
thanks for the positive post Ghosty. I know you didn't mean it that way but that is exactly what it is.
quote:Originally posted by ghosty: Gay and Lesbian Issues on the Ballot
Election 2004 is over and it does not look good for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. In state after state constitutional amendments were passed to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Some of those states also restrict the rights of gays and lesbians and may prevent civil unions. Here's a run down of how the states voted on each measure.
Arkansas
Ballot wording: Marriage consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Legal status for unmarried persons which is identical or substantially similar to marital status shall not be valid or recognized in Arkansas, except that the legislature may recognize a common law marriage from another state between a man and a woman. The legislature has the power to determine the capacity of persons to marry, subject to this amendment, and the legal rights, obligations, privileges, and immunities of marriage.Result: Passed 75% to 25%
Georgia
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: (a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman.
Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state. (b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties’ respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.Result: Passed 77% to 23%.
Kentucky
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.Result: Passed: 75% to 25%.
Michigan
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.Result: Passed: 59% to 41%.
Mississippi
The measure amends the state constitution to read: Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state.Result: Passed: 86% to 14%.
Montana
The measure amends the state constitution to read: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.Result: Passed: 66% to 34%.
North Dakota
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent effect.Result: Passed 73% to 24%.
Ohio
The measure amends the state constitution to include the following statement: Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.Result: Passed 62% to 38%.
Oklahoma
Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman. Neither this Constitution nor any other provision of law shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. B. A marriage between persons of the same gender performed in another state shall not be recognized as valid and binding in this state as of the date of the marriage. C. Any person knowingly issuing a marriage license in violation of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.Result: Passed 76% to 24%.
Oregon
The measure would amend the state constitution to read: It is the policy of Oregon, and its political subdivisions, that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.Result: Passed 57% to 43%.
Utah
The measure amends the state constitution to read, 1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. 2. No other domestic status or union, however denominated, between persons is valid or recognized or may be authorized, sanctioned, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect as a marriage. Results: Passed 66% to 34%.
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
havent posted here in awhile.. thought id check in.... Im still in this but cant say im not disappointed with this stock ... was hoping for a little better then 3/10's of a penny by now but thats the way the penny's fall i guess...
-------------------- M.M. Semester #3 started,Only 7 more semesters to go. Why, in an age where information is so easy to get, cant we find information on one man. Experience is something you dont get until just after you need it. Posts: 1002 | From: Southaven, Mississippi, US | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
by the way i have another buy that filled today at .003
keep it low a little longer i may make 1.5 million soon.
Rod
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i had to update my profile to reflect my new possition.
lol Rod
-------------------- Dont buy or sell on my opinions, do your research. Make sure you know what you are buying before you buy.
This is a non reporting pink sheet with very high risk. From high risk comes high rewards. Dont invest more then you can afford to lose. Posts: 4801 | From: Prescott, ON, Canada | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zippycal: Welcome me to the Million Club. I now sport 1.1 million shares at an average of .0031
chris
A big welcome to you And you should see stars soon
-------------------- Be Careful Of The Toes We Step On Today, They Could Be Attached To The Butt We Have To Kiss Tomorrow Posts: 4727 | From: Elk Grove ( Sacramento )CA USA | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
... was hoping for a little better then 3/10's of a penny by now but thats the way the penny's fall i guess...![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And you should see stars soon ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
