Tremulous Forum
Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: NiTRoX on February 01, 2008, 10:36:58 pm
-
Microsoft makes bid for Yahoo; May change the search game; Bid could rise
Microsoft said Friday that it is making an unsolicited offer of $31 a share, or $44.6 billion, to buy Yahoo in a move that would give the software giant more market share and become a significant threat to Google.
In a statement, Microsoft would allow Yahoo shareholders to get cash or shares of Microsoft. At a 62 percent premium to Yahoo’s closing price of $19.18 the deal would seem like a no brainer for suffering Yahoo shareholders. Yahoo said it will evaluate the offer “carefully and promptly.”
Analysts called Microsoft’s overture a “bear hug” and noted that the price tag may increase to seal the deal. Leland Westerfield, an analyst at BMO Capital Markets, had the most interesting take on the deal. In a research note, he said:
The Yahoo offer could rise above $31. The valuation amounts to 12x projected core EBITDA for Yahoo, net of cash and equity assets from Yahoo! Japan and Alibaba and GMarket that amount to ~$12 per Yahoo. The offer, presented as an open-letter to Yahoo! Board, strikes us an effort to drive a wedge between Yahoo management and directors’ constituencies who might favor a transaction and those who resist a takeover - and therefore it is our view that Microsoft would ultimately need to sweeten its initial offer price in order to prevail.
On a conference call with analysts, Microsoft didn’t exactly shoot down the idea that the bid could rise. Microsoft CFO Chris Liddell ducked a question about whether the company’s bid for Yahoo was final. Microsoft executives said the time was right for the Yahoo offer. The two parties had been talking for 18 months, said Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer (see Dan’s conference call notes).
Another wild-card: Google could be a spoiler. In fact, Citigroup analyst Mark Mahaney said Yahoo has few options to boost shareholder value right now. Yahoo’s one trump card should it want to remain independent would be outsourcing search to Google in a move that could boost earnings by 25 percent.
The deal, which has been rumored off an on for years, makes two things clear: Yahoo’s assets are promising despite naysayers and Microsoft is damn serious about being a search player. A long-awaited Microsoft-Yahoo made sense a year ago and makes sense now.
Meanwhile, Microsoft must be sensing that it has one big shot to catch Google in the search wars and Yahoo is the best way to make it happen. Google is still executing well, but there are worries about growth. On the surface, Microsoft’s bid is out of character, but given acquisitions like aQuantive it’s clear that Ballmer (left) is thinking a little like Oracle CEO Larry Ellison. In October, Ballmer said Microsoft would eventually dunk on Google–looks more like a roll-up to me.
Microsoft said the deal is about scale.
Ballmer said:
“We have great respect for Yahoo!, and together we can offer an increasingly exciting set of solutions for consumers, publishers and advertisers while becoming better positioned to compete in the online services market. We believe our combination will deliver superior value to our respective shareholders and better choice and innovation to our customers and industry partners.”
Ray Ozzie, chief software architect at Microsoft, said:
“Our lives, our businesses, and even our society have been progressively transformed by the Web, and Yahoo! has played a pioneering role by building compelling, high-scale services and infrastructure. The combination of these two great teams would enable us to jointly deliver a broad range of new experiences to our customers that neither of us would have achieved on our own.”
Indeed, the combinations of assets from a combined Microsoft and Yahoo is a bit staggering. MSN, Yahoo, Flickr, Zimbra and a bunch of other properties would be under one roof. The big question: Can Microsoft manage it all?
Some key questions to ponder: Would Zimbra become the future Office Live? How about rationalizing products, ad systems and search algorithms. What about ad markets? Cloud computing projects? The overlap is immense.
In the end, those headaches may be worth it. Sure, there would be some overlap between the companies, but Microsoft would get Yahoo’s managers like Sue Decker and research teams. Microsoft touted R&D critical mass and innovation as two big selling points. In addition, the two combined Web giants could cut a lot of costs. Microsoft is estimating about $1 billion in savings from the combined entity. CEO Jerry Yang (right) would have to consider the proposal in the name of shareholder value. Given the impatience of Wall Street it’s clear that folks aren’t going to wait around for Yang to grow in the job and get Yahoo back to $31 a share.
Specifically, Microsoft says the combined companies can target the following areas:
Scale economics driven by audience critical mass and increased value for advertisers;
Combined engineering talent to accelerate innovation;
Operational efficiencies through elimination of redundant cost;
And the ability to innovate in emerging user experiences such as video and mobile.
Microsoft added that it will dangle retention plans to keep talent and has processes and a plan in place to integrate Yahoo. We’ll overlook for the moment that Microsoft has never integrated a company as large as Yahoo.
The deal would allegedly close in the second half of 2008, but I’d expect the usual European Union hangups and U.S. approval.
Microsoft sent the following letter to Yahoo. Realistically it’s hard to see how Yahoo could say no.
January 31, 2008
Board of Directors
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Attention: Roy Bostock, Chairman
Attention: Jerry Yang, Chief Executive Officer
Dear Members of the Board:
I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of Microsoft to make a proposal for a business combination of Microsoft and Yahoo!. Under our proposal, Microsoft would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Yahoo! common stock for per share consideration of $31 based on Microsoft’s closing share price on January 31, 2008, payable in the form of $31 in cash or 0.9509 of a share of Microsoft common stock. Microsoft would provide each Yahoo! shareholder with the ability to choose whether to receive the consideration in cash or Microsoft common stock, subject to pro-ration so that in the aggregate one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be exchanged for shares of Microsoft common stock and one-half of the Yahoo! common shares will be converted into the right to receive cash. Our proposal is not subject to any financing condition.
Our proposal represents a 62% premium above the closing price of Yahoo! common stock of $19.18 on January 31, 2008. The implied premium for the operating assets of the company clearly is considerably greater when adjusted for the minority, non-controlled assets and cash. By whatever financial measure you use - EBITDA, free cash flow, operating cash flow, net income, or analyst target prices - this proposal represents a compelling value realization event for your shareholders.
We believe that Microsoft common stock represents a very attractive investment opportunity for Yahoo!’s shareholders. Microsoft has generated revenue growth of 15%, earnings growth of 26%, and a return on equity of 35% on average for the last three years. Microsoft’s share price has generated shareholder returns of 8% during the last one year period and 28% during the last three year period, significantly outperforming the S&P 500. It is our view that Microsoft has significant potential upside given the continued solid growth in our core businesses, the recent launch of Windows Vista, and other strategic initiatives.
Microsoft’s consistent belief has been that the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! clearly represents the best way to deliver maximum value to our respective shareholders, as well as create a more efficient and competitive company that would provide greater value and service to our customers. In late 2006 and early 2007, we jointly explored a broad range of ways in which our two companies might work together. These discussions were based on a vision that the online businesses of Microsoft and Yahoo! should be aligned in some way to create a more effective competitor in the online marketplace. We discussed a number of alternatives ranging from commercial partnerships to a merger proposal, which you rejected. While a commercial partnership may have made sense at one time, Microsoft believes that the only alternative now is the combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! that we are proposing.
In February 2007, I received a letter from your Chairman indicating the view of the Yahoo! Board that “now is not the right time from the perspective of our shareholders to enter into discussions regarding an acquisition transaction.” According to that letter, the principal reason for this view was the Yahoo! Board’s confidence in the “potential upside” if management successfully executed on a reformulated strategy based on certain operational initiatives, such as Project Panama, and a significant organizational realignment. A year has gone by, and the competitive situation has not improved.
While online advertising growth continues, there are significant benefits of scale in advertising platform economics, in capital costs for search index build-out, and in research and development, making this a time of industry consolidation and convergence. Today, the market is increasingly dominated by one player who is consolidating its dominance through acquisition. Together, Microsoft and Yahoo! can offer a credible alternative for consumers, advertisers, and publishers. Synergies of this combination fall into four areas:
Scale economics: This combination enables synergies related to scale economics of the advertising platform where today there is only one competitor at scale. This includes synergies across both search and non-search related advertising that will strengthen the value proposition to both advertisers and publishers. Additionally, the combination allows us to consolidate capital spending.
Expanded R&D capacity: The combined talent of our engineering resources can be focused on R&D priorities such as a single search index and single advertising platform. Together we can unleash new levels of innovation, delivering enhanced user experiences, breakthroughs in search, and new advertising platform capabilities. Many of these breakthroughs are a function of an engineering scale that today neither of our companies has on its own.
Operational efficiencies: Eliminating redundant infrastructure and duplicative operating costs will improve the financial performance of the combined entity.
Emerging user experiences: Our combined ability to focus engineering resources that drive innovation in emerging scenarios such as video, mobile services, online commerce, social media, and social platforms is greatly enhanced.
We would value the opportunity to further discuss with you how to optimize the integration of our respective businesses to create a leading global technology company with exceptional display and search advertising capabilities. You should also be aware that we intend to offer significant retention packages to your engineers, key leaders and employees across all disciplines.
We have dedicated considerable time and resources to an analysis of a potential transaction and are confident that the combination will receive all necessary regulatory approvals. We look forward to discussing this with you, and both our internal legal team and outside counsel are available to meet with your counsel at their earliest convenience.
Our proposal is subject to the negotiation of a definitive merger agreement and our having the opportunity to conduct certain limited and confirmatory due diligence. In addition, because a portion of the aggregate merger consideration would consist of Microsoft common stock, we would provide Yahoo! the opportunity to conduct appropriate limited due diligence with respect to Microsoft. We are prepared to deliver a draft merger agreement to you and begin discussions immediately.
In light of the significance of this proposal to your shareholders and ours, as well as the potential for selective disclosures, our intention is to publicly release the text of this letter tomorrow morning.
Due to the importance of these discussions and the value represented by our proposal, we expect the Yahoo! Board to engage in a full review of our proposal. My leadership team and I would be happy to make ourselves available to meet with you and your Board at your earliest convenience. Depending on the nature of your response, Microsoft reserves the right to pursue all necessary steps to ensure that Yahoo!’s shareholders are provided with the opportunity to realize the value inherent in our proposal.
We believe this proposal represents a unique opportunity to create significant value for Yahoo!’s shareholders and employees, and the combined company will be better positioned to provide an enhanced value proposition to users and advertisers. We hope that you and your Board share our enthusiasm, and we look forward to a prompt and favorable reply.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Steven A. Ballmer
Steven A. Ballmer
Chief Executive Officer
Microsoft
-
Perhaps having serious competition again will be good for Google? Still, it'll be hard to pull me from the relatively virtuous (as far as corporations their size go) Google to one as brutal and inhuman as Microsoft.
In fact, just given their pure bloodthirst for taking down Google, I doubt I'll use Yahoo! when they acquire it, improvements or not, just out of spite.
-
Microsoft makes bid for Yahoo; May change the search game;
Doubt it.. they will Microsoft yahoo up... then it will become even more one sided.
-
Hello... look at MSN search. Who the heck uses that if they know any better? Bleck. EWWWWW! Unless M$ wants to learn from Yahoo, I don't see much good coming of this.
-
Yahoo is already relatively unused. If M$ buy it, no-one will touch it.
-
Might I add to this that MicroSoft's interest in Yahoo is something that has been going on for a while now.
-
Guys, most people don't the "lol micro$oft sux" mentality that informed people (nerds) like us do, and most people don't really even know what to look for in a good search engine. Besides, it seems like MS has largely neglected their own search engine, so that's not much of a basis for comparison, and I'm sure they've got the presence of mind to do some good things with Yahoo. At any rate, they've certainly got the ability.
I wouldn't undercut their influence, not just yet. I'm not saying they're going to challenge Google anytime soon, but they'll probably make waves.
-
Hmm. Perhaps Google could use some competition... it might keep them from getting 3v1l like M1cr050f7.. although IIRC, M$ has always been evil... Windows 1.00 didn't exist; it was just a screensaver that did nothing but stop ppl from buying the alternative... among other stories of their dirty tricks. I wonder if there is an accurate list of M$ misdeeds somewhere that does *NOT* have rabid anti-M$ flaming integrated as well.
-
UPDATE:GOOGLE'S RESPONSE
(http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/30/nytimes_logo_180x180.gif)
February 4, 2008
Google Works to Torpedo Microsoft Bid for Yahoo
By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN and MIGUEL HELFT
Standing between a marriage of Microsoft and Yahoo may be the technology behemoth that has continually outsmarted them: Google.
In an unusually aggressive effort to prevent Microsoft from moving forward with its $44.6 billion hostile bid for Yahoo, Google emerged over the weekend with plans to play the role of spoiler.
Publicly, Google came out against the deal, contending in a statement that the pairing, proposed by Microsoft on Friday in the form of a hostile offer, would pose threats to competition that need to be examined by policy makers around the world.
Privately, Google, seeing the potential deal as a direct attack, went much further. Its chief executive, Eric E. Schmidt, placed a call to Yahoo’s chief, Jerry Yang, offering the company’s help in fending off Microsoft, possibly in the form of a partnership between the companies, people briefed on the call said.
Google’s lobbyists in Washington have also begun plotting how it might present a case against the transaction to lawmakers, people briefed on the company’s plans said. Google could benefit by simply prolonging a regulatory review until after the next president takes office.
In addition, several Google executives made “back-channel” calls over the weekend to allies at companies like Time Warner, which owns AOL, to inquire whether they planned to pursue a rival offer and how they could assist, these people said. Google owns 5 percent of AOL.
Despite Google’s efforts and the work of Yahoo’s own bankers over the weekend to garner interest in a bid to rival Microsoft’s, one did not seem likely, at least at this early stage.
For example, a spokesman for the News Corporation said Sunday night that it was not preparing a bid, and other frequently named prospective suitors like Time Warner, AT&T and Comcast have not begun work on offers, people close to them said. They suggested that they did not want to enter a bidding war with Microsoft, which could easily top their offers.
A spokesman for Time Warner declined to comment, as did a spokesman for Comcast. A representative for AT&T could not be reached.
In the meantime, people close to Yahoo said that the company received a flurry of inquires over the weekend from potential suitors. Some people inside Yahoo have even speculated about the prospect of breaking up the company. That could mean selling or outsourcing its search-related business to Google and spinning off or selling its operations that product original content, these people said.
“Everyone is considering all kinds of options and deal on search is one of them,” a person familiar with the situation said.
One person involved in Yahoo’s deliberations suggested that “the sum of the parts are worth more than the whole,” arguing that its various pieces like Yahoo Finance, for example, could be sold to a company like the News Corporation for a huge premium while Yahoo Sports could be sold to a company like ESPN, a unit of the Walt Disney Company.
Executives at rival companies were less optimistic about such a breakup strategy. “No one can get to a $44 billion price,” one executive at a major media company said, “even if you split it into a dozen pieces.”
In making its bid for Yahoo, Microsoft is betting that past antitrust rulings against it for abusing its monopoly power in personal computer software will not restrain its hand in an Internet deal.
In the United States, a federal district court in Washington ruled in 2001 that Microsoft had repeatedly violated the law by stifling the threat to its monopoly position posed by Netscape, which popularized the Web browser. The suit, brought during the Clinton administration, was settled by the Bush administration. But as a result of a consent decree extending through 2009, a federal court and a three-member team of technical experts monitors Microsoft’s behavior.
In 2006, for example, after Google complained to the Justice Department and the European Commission that Microsoft was making its MSN search engine the default in the most recent version of its Web browser, Microsoft modified the software so that consumers could easily change to Google or Yahoo.
In Google’s statement on Sunday, it said that the potential purchase of Yahoo by Microsoft could pose threats to competition that needed to be examined by policy makers.
Google’s broadly worded concerns lacked detailed claims about any anticompetitive effects of the deal, and the company did not publicly ask regulators to take specific actions at this time.
“Could Microsoft now attempt to exert the same sort of inappropriate and illegal influence over the Internet that it did with the PC?” asked David Drummond, Google’s senior vice president and chief legal officer, writing on the company’s blog.
Yahoo and Microsoft declined to comment Sunday on Google’s actions. Earlier on Sunday, Microsoft’s general counsel, Bradford L. Smith, said in a statement: “The combination of Microsoft and Yahoo will create a more competitive marketplace by establishing a compelling No. 2 competitor for Internet search and online advertising.”
Google’s effort to derail or delay the deal on antitrust grounds mirrors Microsoft’s own actions with respect to Google’s bid for the online advertising specialist DoubleClick for $3.1 billion, announced in April.
The strategy is not surprising, considering that any delays would work to Google’s benefit. “Google can tap into all of the ill will that Microsoft has created in the last couple of decades on the antitrust front,” said Eric Goldman, director the High-Tech Law Institute at the Santa Clara University School of Law.
The outcome of any antitrust inquiry will hinge, in part, on how regulators define various markets. Microsoft-Yahoo, for instance, would have a large share of the Web-based e-mail market, but a smaller share of the overall e-mail market.
“The potential concern would be that Microsoft, if it acquires Yahoo, could do on the Internet what it did in the personal computer world — make technical standards more Microsoft-centric and steer consumers to its products,” said Stephen D. Houck, a lawyer representing the states involved in the consent decree against Microsoft.
Yahoo has not made a public statement about the proposed deal since Friday, when it said it was weighing Microsoft’s offer as well as alternatives and would “pursue the best course of action to maximize long-term value for shareholders.”
Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said an antitrust review of the Microsoft-Yahoo deal could take a long time and “may well bleed into a new administration with an entire new view on antitrust than the Bush administration.”
@jr2: Critcism of Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft)
-
People who are anti-MicroSoft, or anti- any software company for that matter, have a serious mental deficit and need to get some serious help.
-
The latest TWiT (http://twit.tv/) (this week in tech) netcast talks all about it if you fancy some listening. (its episode 130 of TWiT)
Hope you enjoy it if you listen. There are actually a number of good shows that Leo and friends do during the week - great for ipod.
-
People who are anti-MicroSoft, or anti- any software company for that matter, have a serious mental deficit and need to get some serious help.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. Microsoft has practiced probably some of the most cutthroat and unfair business methods in America since anti-trust laws were put in place. The only thing to take issue with is if people oppose them without knowing why, or without opposing other corporations that are equally bad.
-
im anti microsoft, anti linux AND anti lava-croft.
-
I'm sorry you don't like Microsoft, why don't you go cry about it in a small dark corner.
I really couldn't care less about your griping about how Microsoft has made deals that were good fro themselves.
-
Lets complain about other people's opinions.
-
Lets complain about other people's opinions.
Thats such a dumb idea.
;)
-
@jr2: Critcism of Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft)
Thx... was informative. I'd already heard of some of that, but this is more info... without any ranting involved. Nice. :)
-
Lets complain about other people's opinions.
People who are anti-MicroSoft, or anti- any software company for that matter, have a serious mental deficit and need to get some serious help.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. Microsoft has practiced probably some of the most cutthroat and unfair business methods in America since anti-trust laws were put in place. The only thing to take issue with is if people oppose them without knowing why, or without opposing other corporations that are equally bad.
And of course, MicroSoft is one of the biggest problems this world is facing, The rest is far less important than some bloated software company which makes crippled software. You people need to set priorities. Look at what other multinationals do, things that make MicroSoft look like a charity. But of course, everybody understands what a big mark MicroSoft is, and what easy glory you can gain from bashing it.
-
Lets complain about other people's opinions.
People who are anti-MicroSoft, or anti- any software company for that matter, have a serious mental deficit and need to get some serious help.
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so fast. Microsoft has practiced probably some of the most cutthroat and unfair business methods in America since anti-trust laws were put in place. The only thing to take issue with is if people oppose them without knowing why, or without opposing other corporations that are equally bad.
And of course, MicroSoft is one of the biggest problems this world is facing, The rest is far less important than some bloated software company which makes crippled software. You people need to set priorities. Look at what other multinationals do, things that make MicroSoft look like a charity. But of course, everybody understands what a big mark MicroSoft is, and what easy glory you can gain from bashing it.
Bill gates has a charity foundation. (Bill and melinda gates foudnation) and it is said that Bill Gates will leave only mirosoft to his children and the money will go for poor people in Africa. He can end poverty you know..
-
anti-company chitchat is the online version of football hooliganism.
-
Bill gates has a charity foundation. (Bill and melinda gates foudnation) and it is said that Bill Gates will leave only mirosoft to his children and the money will go for poor people in Africa. He can end poverty you know..
He also said windows 98 would be fast and secure and vista would WOW ..
http://www.blip.tv/file/340692 <-- funny vista vid.
x
-
And of course, MicroSoft is one of the biggest problems this world is facing, The rest is far less important than some bloated software company which makes crippled software. You people need to set priorities. Look at what other multinationals do, things that make MicroSoft look like a charity. But of course, everybody understands what a big mark MicroSoft is, and what easy glory you can gain from bashing it.
I've already covered that point:
The only thing to take issue with is if people oppose them without knowing why, or without opposing other corporations that are equally bad.
Maybe "equally bad or worse" would've been better wording, but surely I got my point across. I have no personal beef, and I never said I had. If I make fun of them, it's over an issue that's close to home for me, and because I get a kick out of it. I'm well aware that there are worse corporations and other groups of powerful people that are doing worse things to the world.
But by the same token, Microsoft is still a bad company. I never said I think they're the pinnacle of inhumanity, but they're still quite immoral, and that's enough for me to be anti-Microsoft. What's the problem here? lol
Bill gates has a charity foundation. (Bill and melinda gates foudnation) and it is said that Bill Gates will leave only mirosoft to his children and the money will go for poor people in Africa. He can end poverty you know..
He's the richest (second richest? Apparently he got passed up by someone recently) man in the world, I think it's kin of expected of him to give some back lol. And if he does indeed give his money to fight poverty in Africa when he dies (where'd you get that information? I'm not saying it's not true, but there's tons of Bill Gates rumors), it's not like it's any skin off his back. I can't imagine how I'll use whatever money I have after I die. lol
Also, no, even if he has the best of intentions, he can't end poverty by just throwing money at the country. It has to go through the right channels to get to the right places to provide the right opportunities for the African countries to pull themselves out of poverty. Getting there would be a long and painful process, and you'd have to deal with wiping out a huge AIDS epidemic and dealing with government leaders who honestly just don't give a shit about the impoverished in their country, to name a few. And even if you do wipe out all the obstacles and create the opportunities, it's up to the people to pull themselves out. Poverty is a lifestyle, and you never know what the reactions will be to such a lifestyle change (such as the large amount of crime in former slaves right after they were freed in America). I imagine it could bring the best or worst out of people.
Now I think Bill Gates has a net worth of $56 billion or something, and we're talking about him giving it all to Africa, right? Here's something for comparison: The Iraq War has so far cost the US $491 billion. Gates can help the situation in Africa, but he most certainly can't solve it.
-
Now I think Bill Gates has a net worth of $56 billion or something, and we're talking about him giving it all to Africa, right? Here's something for comparison: The Iraq War has so far cost the US $491 billion. Gates can help the situation in Africa, but he most certainly can't solve it.
peace is cheaper than war and is much more fun....
-
Now I think Bill Gates has a net worth of $56 billion or something, and we're talking about him giving it all to Africa, right? Here's something for comparison: The Iraq War has so far cost the US $491 billion. Gates can help the situation in Africa, but he most certainly can't solve it.
peace is cheaper than war and is much more fun....
Is that why you play tremulous with its simulated violence? ;D
-
Now I think Bill Gates has a net worth of $56 billion or something, and we're talking about him giving it all to Africa, right? Here's something for comparison: The Iraq War has so far cost the US $491 billion. Gates can help the situation in Africa, but he most certainly can't solve it.
peace is cheaper than war and is much more fun....
No to the former and yes to the latter.
-
.................................................
You're right, since Bill Gate has a lot of money, his donating it to fight cancer, poverty, aids, etc doesn't mean anything, and he must be doing it for some mean, evil purpose. I'm sorry I just hadn't understood your logic up until now.
-
.................................................
You're right, since Bill Gate has a lot of money, his donating it to fight cancer, poverty, aids, etc doesn't mean anything, and he must be doing it for some mean, evil purpose. I'm sorry I just hadn't understood your logic up until now.
*sigh* I give up. Heh.
-
.................................................
You're right, since Bill Gate has a lot of money, his donating it to fight cancer, poverty, aids, etc doesn't mean anything, and he must be doing it for some mean, evil purpose. I'm sorry I just hadn't understood your logic up until now.
Of course. I'm simply shocked at your intelligence. I didn't quite get that out of the Horton's comments; I bow to your superior intellect and reading comprehension skillz.
/sarcasm
*sigh* I give up. Heh.
::) Never give up. Never surrender!
-
.................................................
You're right, since Bill Gate has a lot of money, his donating it to fight cancer, poverty, aids, etc doesn't mean anything, and he must be doing it for some mean, evil purpose. I'm sorry I just hadn't understood your logic up until now.
Considering that there is a highly effective known cure for cancer he doesn't need to spend money on research for new cures for it
Most people do seem to understand that if he wanted to pile up his money in a field and torch it IT IS HIS MONEY it isnt anyones business what he does with it
btw. I do drink Apple Kool-Aid ;D
-
Highly effective right now means about an 80% cure rate. While that is pretty good, that still means 20%, or 2 out of 10 people infected will die of cancer. I don't think there is anything wrong with investing money in trying to improve ways to cure cancer.
-
It might be smarter to first try to get clean drinking water to every human being on this planet. Sounds simple, it's not that expensive and it will save a whole lot more lives than expensive cancer research. Proper sanitation is another one.
You'd be surprised how many people die over the lack of something like a toilet.
-
Microsoft buying yahoo is not to my knowledge solving any world issues.
That kind of money can buy a lot of toilets.
-
Highly effective right now means about an 80% cure rate. While that is pretty good, that still means 20%, or 2 out of 10 people infected will die of cancer. I don't think there is anything wrong with investing money in trying to improve ways to cure cancer.
I should have made my point clearer:
Except in some extreme cases (yeah this is the disclaimer) it has been known to cure:
Cancer of all types
Ulcerative colitis
Mental problems
Lack of energy
Every kind of lousy health I can think of
it is called water fasting followed by not eating foods that have had all there worth processed out of them
Now I will be called a treehugginghippeidiot but I am not oh well...
edit posted it before I was done writing :(
-
Trem devs should be happy that we only demand 1.2 from them rather than the cure of cancer and toilets for the 3rd world countries :-D
[EDIT: as far as i know, cancer is not an 'infection']
-
[EDIT: as far as i know, cancer is not an 'infection']
Cancer is caused by the body being in an acidic state, this acid state is caused ENTIRELY by diet and environment
Dis-ease cannot get a foothold in an alkaline (oxygenated) body
-
I should have made my point clearer:
Except in some extreme cases (yeah this is the disclaimer) it has been known to cure:
Cancer of all types
Ulcerative colitis
Mental problems
Lack of energy
Every kind of lousy health I can think of
it is called water fasting followed by not eating foods that have had all there worth processed out of them
Now I will be called a treehugginghippeidiot but I am not oh well...
Anyone who believes in that nonsense should be shot, so they cannot spread this nonsense and actually make people believe in it. People die because they believe fasting and any other hippie nonsense will cure cancer.
-
I should have made my point clearer:
Except in some extreme cases (yeah this is the disclaimer) it has been known to cure:
Cancer of all types
Ulcerative colitis
Mental problems
Lack of energy
Every kind of lousy health I can think of
it is called water fasting followed by not eating foods that have had all there worth processed out of them
Now I will be called a treehugginghippeidiot but I am not oh well...
Anyone who believes in that nonsense should be shot, so they cannot spread this nonsense and actually make people believe in it. People die because they believe fasting and any other hippie nonsense will cure cancer.
To each their own. If it ends up hurting the person that does it and no one else then what does it matter to you. Save your bullets.
In my post before this i was trying to allude this topic is getting off topic and to make another topic if you want to start talking about how to save to world or who is a hippie etc, especially if you want to flame everyone for being a hippie or thinking differently than you.
-
This has nothing to do with flaming anyone, this has to do with some complete moron saying you can cure cancer by water fasting. As a person who is from all sides confronted with cancer, this agitates me to the point that I really want to smack him in the face for spreading such utter nonsense. There is zero scientific proof for his 'theory', as is the case with just about any 'alternative cure' for cancer.
What's even worse, is that people who are deadly sick, gladly grab hold of anything that might alleviate their illness, even if in the back of their head they know it's nonsense. This is criminal, and should be fought with all strength one can muster.
Thinking differently is different from spreading lies.
-
I am sure that Lava is right, so if an UnnamedPlayer is having a deadly cancer and after some months of playing trem finds the forums, signs in, and he clicks on the Ms VS Yahoo topic sooner or later, won't be misleaded with such wierd theories... <.< :-D
At the same time i will not fight against the idea that if anything you consume, inhale, see or smell can cause cancer, so full !ban environment is the best way to avoid any lethal stuffs.
-
Erm...hate to interrupt...
But Yahoo didn't bite.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9cE_gI-aemyNxZQb7YOBC3rsNlQD8UN2QC01
-
This has nothing to do with flaming anyone, this has to do with some complete moron saying you can cure cancer by water fasting. As a person who is from all sides confronted with cancer, this agitates me to the point that I really want to smack him in the face for spreading such utter nonsense. There is zero scientific proof for his 'theory', as is the case with just about any 'alternative cure' for cancer.
What's even worse, is that people who are deadly sick, gladly grab hold of anything that might alleviate their illness, even if in the back of their head they know it's nonsense. This is criminal, and should be fought with all strength one can muster.
Thinking differently is different from spreading lies.
Why don't you go read information about it first? or does your admin power grant you omniscience?
And if you want to talk about scientific proof, then I will talk about that - just let me know if you want your theories crushed.
To OPTIMUS:
I don't mean that you become a impenetrable bubble, but eating food that has had every chemical in existence sprayed on it then burnt up in a pasteurizer isn't healthy
p.s. I would like someone to engage me in a LOGICAL argument instead of pulling out the name book
-
Why don't you go read information about it first? or does your admin power grant you omniscience?
I am granted a family full of cancer patients, I have not only read about your retarded theories, I have actually seen multiple patients undertake them, because they were desperate and dying.
And if you want to talk about scientific proof, then I will talk about that - just let me know if you want your theories crushed.
Scientific proof is best done in practice and close observation. Since I have observed water fasting treatment on at least 7 cancer patients, from close by, for a prolonged period, I can tell you that the theory is utter nonsense.
Because my own experiences with this are probably hardly any proof to you, any sane oncologist can also tell you this.
To keep it really, really simple: The fact that apples are good for you doesn't mean they cure cancer.
-
Erm...hate to interrupt...
But Yahoo didn't bite.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g9cE_gI-aemyNxZQb7YOBC3rsNlQD8UN2QC01
DENIED!
-
Why don't you go read information about it first? or does your admin power grant you omniscience?
I am granted a family full of cancer patients, I have not only read about your retarded theories, I have actually seen multiple patients undertake them, because they were desperate and dying.
And if you want to talk about scientific proof, then I will talk about that - just let me know if you want your theories crushed.
Scientific proof is best done in practice and close observation. Since I have observed water fasting treatment on at least 7 cancer patients, from close by, for a prolonged period, I can tell you that the theory is utter nonsense.
Because my own experiences with this are probably hardly any proof to you, any sane oncologist can also tell you this.
To keep it really, really simple: The fact that apples are good for you doesn't mean they cure cancer.
Then I apologize for insinuating that you knew nothing, but having said that you wont convince me either that drugs are the answer. (and I can demonstrate the errors in the scientific method)
truce? :-[
-
The speed with which you take back your ridiculous statements amazes me.
The drugs you refer to are a proven method to combat cancer. Yes, they might be bad for you, and yes, they might destroy much more than just your cancer. But at the moment, until we have devised technology to 'fix' the mutated cell receptors, we will have to make do.
About that truce, never in my life.
-
About that truce, never in my life.
wonderful oppurtunity to change your avatar into a battleflag for a higher purpose than the current childish attention whoring.
-
The speed with which you take back your ridiculous statements amazes me.
[.....]
About that truce, never in my life.
Forget it, I apologized for being mean and then you keep attacking.
This Means War.
edit:
I hereby declare war on the entity Lava Croft and all its allies
-
btw: How many posts do I need till I can smite you?
-
wonderful oppurtunity to change your avatar into a battleflag for a higher purpose than the current childish attention whoring.
(http://satgnu.net/upload/lava/uberos.gif)
Suck it down.
The only one being the attention whore is you, constantly directing attention to my avatar.
[EDIT] typos
-
STOP DELETING MY POSTS and
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Anti-Nazi-Symbol.svg/273px-Anti-Nazi-Symbol.svg.png)
-
Seriously, this has turned into the most immature discussion I think I have ever seen.
-
The German (and Austrian) postwar criminal code makes the public showing of the Hakenkreuz (the swastika) and other Nazi symbols illegal and punishable, except for scholarly reasons. It is even censored from the lithographs on boxes of model kits, and the decals that come in the box. It is also censored from the reprints of 1930s railway timetable published by Bundesbahn. The eagle remains, but appears to be holding a solid black circle between its talons. The swastikas on Hindu and Jain temples are exempt, as religious symbols cannot be banned in Germany.
A German fashion company was investigated for using traditional British-made folded leather buttons after complaints that they resembled swastikas. In response, Esprit destroyed two hundred thousand catalogues.[45][46]
A controversy was stirred by the decision of several police departments to begin inquiries against anti-fascists.[47] In late 2005 police raided the offices of the punklabel and mailorder "Nix Gut Records" and confiscated merchandise depicting crossed-out swastikas and fists smashing swastikas. In 2006 the Stade police department started an inquiry against anti-fascist youths using a placard depicting a person dumping a swastika into a trashcan. The placard was displayed in opposition to the campaign of right-wing nationalist parties for local elections.[48]
On Friday, March 17, 2006, a member of the Bundestag Claudia Roth reported herself to the German police for displaying a crossed-out swastika in multiple demonstrations against Neo-Nazis, and subsequently got the Bundestag to suspend her immunity from prosecution. She intended to show the absurdity of charging anti-fascists with using fascist symbols: "We don't need prosecution of non-violent young people engaging against right-wing extremism."
On March 15, 2007, the Federal Court of Justice of Germany (Bundesgerichtshof) reversed the above-mentioned verdicts, since the crossed-out symbols were "clearly directed against a revival of national-socialist endeavors", hereby settling the dispute for the future.[49] [50] [51]
The relevant excerpt[52] of the German criminal code reads:
§ 86 StGB Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations
(1) Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda:
1. of a party which has been declared to be unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court or a party or organization, as to which it has been determined, no longer subject to appeal, that it is a substitute organization of such a party; […]
4. means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. […]
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes. […]
§ 86a StGB Use of Symbols of Unconstitutional Organizations
(1) Whoever:
1. domestically distributes or publicly uses, in a meeting or in writings (§ 11 subsection (3)) disseminated by him, symbols of one of the parties or organizations indicated in § 86 subsection (1), nos. 1, 2 and 4; or
2. produces, stocks, imports or exports objects which depict or contain such symbols for distribution or use domestically or abroad, in the manner indicated in number 1,
shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.
(2) Symbols, within the meaning of subsection (1), shall be, in particular, flags, insignia, uniforms, slogans and forms of greeting. Symbols which are so similar as to be mistaken for those named in sentence 1 shall be deemed to be equivalent thereto. […]
-
I think he's Dutch or something.
-
Ya feexed it
-
I have not removed any posts?
Also, if any law apply here, it's US law. US laws do not prohibit showing off swastikas or penguins.
-
I have not removed any posts?
Also, if any law apply here, it's US law. US laws do not prohibit showing off swastikas or penguins.
Actually while it is not technically illegal here, the posting of penguins is generally frowned upon my many people.
-
Lava I am sorry that your family has cancer but you have yet to logically attack my posts
here is an example of an abusive ad hominem fallacy:
Joe Smith is a drunk, so whatever he says is false.
or the reverse: John Doe is rich, listen to him
OR:
Revan thinks water fasting is a good idea, therefore he is a hippie (could be true -- isnt), therefore he is wrong (fallacy)
Here is another type of fallacy:
A black cat crossed my path, I fell and broke my leg, therefore the cat did it
OR:
Joe Smith has cancer and got chemo, the cancer went away for a while, therefore the chemo did it (maybe it did, maybe not)
Again I am not accusing you of not caring for your family or anything like that
edit: typos
-
And incase you didnt think about it:
Joe Smith has cancer, he water fasts, the cancer goes away, so the fast did it (fallacy)
ALL empirical research is fallacious, including the scientific theories you cling to so dearly
Here is an example of asserting the consequence given by Bertrand Russel:
If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing then this bread will nourish me
This bread does nourish me therefore it is a stone and stones are nourishing
OR:
If chemo will drive away cancer for a while and Joe Smith (has cancer) gets chemo then he will be cured (for a while)
Joe did have cancer and got chemo and the cancer went away THEREFORE chemo cures cancer
this argument is formally fallacious, but is at the root of almost all scientific research
the other argument is:
Over the past 10 years I have counted 10,000 swans
All of those swans have been white
therefore swans are white
this too is a fallacy (incomplete induction)
-
I just want to let you know that, as a person who loves natural sciences and chemistry as much as life itself, reading your posts makes my head hurt.
-
I just want to let you know that, as a person who loves natural sciences and chemistry as much as life itself, reading your posts makes my head hurt.
Just wait until he gets cancer himself and he tries to cure it with water fasting.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Anti-Nazi-Symbol.svg/273px-Anti-Nazi-Symbol.svg.png)
Suck it down.
The only one being the attention whore is you, constantly directing attention to my avatar.
[EDIT] typos
You suck this down.
-
I just want to let you know that, as a person who loves natural sciences and chemistry as much as life itself, reading your posts makes my head hurt.
Just wait until he gets cancer himself and he tries to cure it with water fasting.
Ah... but here is the irony about this, I can know truth you CANT do to your epistemology
and I wont get cancer if any of what I have read is correct
-
Thinking you are free of the risk to get cancer is like thinking you are free of the risk to catch the common cold. You posses the gene that causes cancer, just like any Human being.
-
Thinking you are free of the risk to get cancer is like thinking you are free of the risk to catch the common cold. You posses the gene that causes cancer, just like any Human being.
I give up (maybe) I will never convince anyone who isn't already sympathetic to the ideas and you quite obviously arent
btw. why didn't you respond to the other line of my post?
-
Also ultimately if I die it isn't the end for me, can you say that?
-
I'm not a believer, if that is what you mean. Also, I strongly suggest to you to stop the double posting. Double posting is a lame way to up your postcount. You can click 'Modify' and add to your current post, ending with a small note about what you added, if anything.
-
I am now mentally replacing every one of your posts with the following graph.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_data_so_far.png)
And once again there is peace in the natural world.
-
I think Revan's logic is kind of the same as Dee-Dee's from Dexter's Laboratory: She had an imaginary friend, and Dexter asked her that if the friend was real, why couldn't she show it to him. Dee-Dee replied that air is also real, and you can't see that either, baffling Dexter.
-
Ok, lets shut the fuck up and get back on the fucking topic.
Thanks.
-
Ok, lets shut the fuck up and get back on the fucking topic.
Thanks.
Ok, but I get one last salvo
There is no way to prove anything in the 'real' world (you can disprove it though) read Bertrand Russel if you doubt me
ok that is over with now what were we talking about
btw. I DO NOT DOUBLE POST FOR THE COUNT
-
Ok, lets shut the fuck up and get back on the fucking topic.
Thanks.
-
Ok, lets shut the fuck up and get back on the fucking topic.
Thanks.
And you think anyone would comply? Haha!
-
Ok, lets shut the fuck up and get back on the fucking topic.
Thanks.
And you think anyone would comply? Haha!
Idiot.
-
If it is an interesting subject a new topic will probably be posted, this goes for both the OP and the derailment.