I Have a Bad Feeling About This Market 84 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
This market action doesn't make me feel very good. Sure, the tech rally is good. Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) have both made new highs for the year, and are moving my portfolio up a little, but I see problems with the broad market. Despite yesterday's rally, we are much too close to the bottom of the current Dow range - one slip and we are going down. I don't know where most of the traders keep their current stops, probably around Dow 7800. If we break this level, all hell might break loose. I just don't see any conviction in this market.
The fundamentals are awful, but some tech companies are rallying because they have plenty of cash, and they don't need any loans. These days, anybody who needs loans is paying excessively for them. Altria (MO) paid 587.5+ basic points over Treasuries for a five-year loan on February 3, and that's one of the best companies in the world! Imagine what auto companies would have to pay! It's no wonder that Ford (F) drew down the full amount from its credit lines. The company decided not to wait until those lines were closed under some pretext. The economic situation is simple: It's the Great Depression 2.0.
A barely visible, silver lining that can be found in all of this is that the corporate debt market has started to thaw. There is some movement up in bonds, and if it's not a sucker's rally, maybe, just maybe, things might start improving. Even though treasuries are down a little bit from their incredible high, they are still very high.
I'm waiting for the January inflation data, because if we see more deflation, as I expect we will, then we will be in this cycle for a long time.
Another strange thing that is happening is the movement in commodities - most of them are up. It looks like China is making some planned purchases, and if it's true, then all commodities might go down when China is finished. This could also mean that oil isn't going up any time soon, and might go down even more.
Last but not least, gold is up but India's imports are down sharply, so I wonder who's buying that 30% chunk of production. Maybe we are seeing a discrepancy developing between future markets and real products, again.
Let's wait and see.
Full disclosure: At the time of publication, the author had long positions in AAPL, GOOG and MO and had no positions in other companies mentioned. Positions can change any time.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 84 comments:
bravo, you've claimed your 15 minutes of fame publishing an article with a bunch of "ifs", "maybes" and "mights" and exactly zero substance.
INSIDER PROFITJUANA!
His bio said he was an IT professional with no financial background or financial education whatsover. He wasn't even a U.S. citizen til 2006.
Yet here his analysis sits on Yahoo's Apple page for millions to see. No offense to you, Alex, I'm sure you're a nice guy... but give me a break!!!
Seeking Alpha has become a joke.
So you really think it's in the public's best interest to publish comments from anyone who wants on a financial page traveled by millions (whether they're qualified or not)?!
This article posting is next to those who have been paid for their financial advice for decades and are properly educated. You don't see a problem with that?
That's irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst.
At least Alex isn't one of the hordes of gold bugs, whose only theme is non-stop screaming, "BUY GOLD". But I can choose to read or ignore, just like you.
On Feb 06 09:51 AM gvsmitty19 wrote:
> Larry,
>
> So you really think it's in the public's best interest to publish
> comments from anyone who wants on a financial page traveled by millions
> (whether they're qualified or not)?!
>
> This article posting is next to those who have been paid for their
> financial advice for decades and are properly educated. You don't
> see a problem with that?
>
> That's irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst.
Like any publication, these belong in the editorial page not on page 1.
Irresponsible journalism at its finest.
One article is a summary from an experienced, well educated investment advisor who makes his living analyzing stocks and the very next article is this.
On Feb 06 09:46 AM Larry House wrote:
> The whole purpose of Seeking Alpha, as I see it, is to provide a
> forum for all views. The reader can make his/her own judgment about
> the credibility and usefulness. This piece is right on in tone reflecting
> how many feel about this market and the current investing climate.
> Agree or disagree, but these comments about the author are petty
> and demeaning. Seeking Alpha is not the joke, but some of the comments
> sure are.
On Feb 06 09:33 AM gvsmitty19 wrote:
> Seriously, who are these guys?!?! Are they really getting paid for
> this "information???"
>
> His bio said he was an IT professional with no financial background
> or financial education whatsover. He wasn't even a U.S. citizen til
> 2006.
>
> Yet here his analysis sits on Yahoo's Apple page for millions to
> see. No offense to you, Alex, I'm sure you're a nice guy... but give
> me a break!!!
>
> Seeking Alpha has become a joke.
But only if the VIX is an even number.
And the moon is waxing.
I'm still long AAPL. We're not returning to the friggin Stone Age, are we?
If you can tell me the benefits of reading a stock article from a person with no professional financial education, then I will come back.
Until then, all Seeking Alpha is doing is losing credibility. And once again, I don't mean to knock Alex or anyone personally. This is just an ongoing problem with the philosophy of Seeking Alpha.
Maybe a medical report should have advice in there from a construction worker or a dental pamphlet done by a fireman?
Here's my guess: Gold miners are not hedging (selling their future production to lock in profits at the current price) as much as they used to do. The CEO of Barrick (ABX) (the #1 miner) said in Davos recently that it would be foolish to hedge now, in light of gold's upside potential. It's likely that some other gold miners are thinking the same way. I recall seeing a statistic from COMEX that indicated there was less commercial hedging at present than is usual. However, this implies there will be resistance as gold advances beyond 1000, form the overhanging supply. (Unless the roof falls in on the world's currencies.)
More generally, it's important, in trying to anticipate gold's price action, to realize that it is subject to strong influences due to its status as a commodity (e.g., declining jewelry demand and increasing scrap supply). Therefore, gold's price may stay "irrational" (from a currency speculator's POV) longer than gold bugs can stay solvent--especially in light of its volatility, which can shake them out.
When the Bull is loose and when the Bear is on the prowl...
After seeing Goldman analysts tell me there is no ceiling for oil on July 15th, 2008...
Reading someone's feelings is fine by me. I now know to rely on my on research and my own instincts.
I appreciate this angle on the market, I don't open positions based on any articles. I read it, evaluate what I agree with/disagree with and move on.
It is easy to comment on an article, it is hard to write one. I will continue to read SA, the comments, and take everything as though I were hearing it on telecvision
What has this got to do with anything? It might surprise you to know that people other than "US citizens" read and comment on these forms.
Alex's comment are just as valid as your so called feedback. Based on the so called experts advise prior to AAPL's last quarterly report in which they were all WRONG except for a couple of notable exceptions. I would say the paid analysts are not worth their weight in Bull Crap and that is all they produce.
"Well, you lost a reader in me and a few others that have already posted here already. "
May I wish you a fond Goodbye.
Of course since you know so much perhaps you would consider returning to this form and posting your own enlightened comment in a blog and then we could all rate your contribution.
Why would his opinions be and less valid than the paid mouthpieces of CNBC
or Moodys or Goldman, etc. I welcome all opinions and all comments...I tend to use CNBC power lunch as a reverse barometer...nothing but representatives of the corrupt power establishment.
My issue with gold right now is long term relationships..
look at a three year chart of GLD vs USO..they tracked similar paths untill last fall, now they are well apart. The older I get the more respect I have for historical ratios and long term patterns, so something has to give. Either gold is to high or oil must rise...I'm a bull on oil but must confess I feel oil will stay in a trading range for a few years, maybe $30-$60? World growth, military
spending, construction all look weak, bad for oil.
Anyway, I own both gold and oil, but I'm uncomfortable with the ratios. Gold is a safe haven, yes, but within reason to long established patterns. Or big inflation is coming and oil will join a rally. Or gold stays in a trading range. Guys like Peter Schiff or even Marc Faber scare me a little because they have big positions and are hyping it, we've been down that path to many times.
If the contributor presents a case with facts and admitted hypotheses, then it is for the reader to assess value. There are a lot of "high experience" people who talk on tube and blogs with unadmitted far-fetched hypotheses.
It is also true that SA should somehow vet their contributors before offering them on Yahoo Finance pages.
If you can't see the irresponsibility in that, than there's no point saying anything else.
But oh well. I'm outta here! Best of luck to everyone. The internet killed responsible journalism a long time ago in the dot-com era.
Wait for 500$ Gold till the August 2009.
With horrible news everywhere around the world,why would you be a buyer here?
The internet has one great thing and one terrible thing: it is open.
If you need qualified opinions only, you can find them in the traditional media, like CNBC.
By the way, I did not particularly liked Alex's comment.
great shot term play with nsdqs,
who is buying gld over 900? all the lemmings,
you are making money and all the rest is BS!
It's one thing to disagree, it's quite another to want your voice silenced.
I am very fearful this "Fairness Doctrine" insanity is getting some traction.
On Feb 06 02:05 PM Alex Filonov wrote:
> I want to thank everybody for the comments, positive or negative.
> It's better to get any response than no response...
Nice to read your thoughts. BUt if you feel strange about recent movement in commodities, then you are missing something very profound that ensures many years of commodity bull market to come. Read here:
stockology.blogspot.co...
AAPL and GOOG are over-priced here. There are way much better long stocks to buy in precious metals and dry bulk shipping. I plan to short GOOG near $400.
You are no expert...
My "gut feel" is that we are headed for times so bad that only phsical gold, silver, bourbon, and beans will be valuable. I cannot see how we will avert catastrophe. What you should also know about my "gut feel" is that I am almost always wrong. I am the herd. So when you see me in the grocery buying canned vegetables with a 2012 "use by" date, that is a very bullish signal.
My portfolio has been doing well the last two weeks. Tech, materials, bric, gold, and tbt are all moving up while my laggard is spy. While the dow had been sidetracking, there have been strong moves upward in these sectors. Sign of a rally?
I agree with your thinking, timing.. particularly with your remark about the markets lurking very near the lows, possibly just waiting for the proverbial "one slip" and for the next down move to put in new lows.
On the question of "who's buying that 30% chunk of (gold mining) production", it could well be the OPEC and other middle eastern soverign funds, easing out of all the US Treasuries they hold. Who can blame them for that?
It's good to know you are only writing comments, not reading the articles.
"I've stopped reading Seeking Alpha."
But American can't survive without oil & gas.
Pick your pick.
US is losing more jobs than anyone else.
Therefore US economy must be further through the recession than everyone else.
So as they are all bound to worse than us because were the greatest, it must be going to happen to everyone just as we are recovering.
So US will be able to jump to its feet when everyone else is still on the floor and reassert itself as the undefeated champion.
But, from these articles I get another viewpoint that may help in analysis of any given situation.
In short, anything that stimulates further evaluation of one's own viewpoint has merit.
Regardless of qualifications nobody has ever been very good about predicting the stock market, especially in the short term. The same is true with big sections of the market and generally individual stocks.
Readers of SA can put the more credible and experienced contributors on their "watch list" and just read their stuff. I do this because there are a few people on SA that really know their stuff. You can also often take their original content from the blog and bring it into your feed reader. So generally speaking users should be able to easily filter content and read what they want.
However the Yahoo Finance thing is more problematic. It's true that you really don't want total junk going up there. SA doesn't and neither does Yahoo. (The same is true for Google Finance where the "discussions" end up being absurdly useless.)
The question is should SA be more aggressive at filtering what they push "up" to sites like Yahoo Finance. I think so. First of all I think that an obvious one is first time contributors with no verifiable identity and background probably don't belong. But I think SA can do more filtering, top-down or collaborative, to upgrade the public view of content in places like Yahoo.
The last point is that people who are on the system and posting inane content or comments should probably be removed. I notice that especially when people have stock positions that run counter to a post they are very quick on the trigger to post some negative comments.
I've had it happen quite a few times and have contacted some of the people. They often then say "Ah well I'm sorry I understand what you are saying. It's just that this is my biggest position and when I saw your note I really saw red."
If you are feeling angry it's probably a good idea to not hit the Publish button.
This a forum for opinion, comment, agreement and dissent.
I appreciate any and all articles that give a clear point of view, whether I agree or not.
The purpose of SA is not to give yet another platform for the exclusive use of the army of so-called 'well qualified talking heads'! Rather it is a forum for discussion and opinion.
As such, SA provides a wealth of ideas for the fertile mind. I have learned far, far more from 'ordinary' contributors like Alex than I have from the 'well qualified' bozos on CNBC!
"Yes, my suggestion would be to keep Seeking Alpha articles from unqualified members out of Yahoo Finance's main page. "
Hmm. The folks you want to be the exclusive authors on SA are those that led all the investors to portfolio destruction by not/improperly analyzing and forcasting, even in a general way (Schiff, Roubini, et al excluded) what was coming.
I guess you would also vote to keep the same politicians in charge of our country's political system too?
That doesn't strike me as too bright.
I like to hear/read thoughts from "outside" the establishment. You can never tell where a real gem lies.
Peace.
Stimulus rally is coming and if anyone has not looked, there are so many SHORTS on everything , that any movement UP and the shorts must cover.........one move north and we rally
Look at Vestas, building five plants in China and five in Colorado to make Wind Turbines and everyone says ''''nobody can get financing''' and wind will die and renewables are dead money walking..........
well, CHINA is getting ready to pull the plug on a 586 BILLION STIMULUS and unlike our stimulus pork package, China has 100 billion into wind energy coming to be spent...........Vestas going NORTH and soon!
The GOLD BUGS are tiresome and boring. But they could be right, also.
I enjoy this site and all the opinions. Don't have to agree with all of them.
Buying a tech stock or any stock just because they are cash rich is dangerous. Mr. Ballamer almost blew microsofts cash hoard on yahoo. I suspect this is one of the reasons microsoft has not been doing well. Corpoate governence is a very important factor as is cash debt ratio. but they are only two amongst many to consider.
As long as the guy makes his long/short disclosures, I'm fine with it. Too many 'financial professionals' do nothing but talk their book on CNBC or other financial news sources.
On Feb 06 10:20 AM raytayzmd wrote:
> ...I agree...it seems like every kind of troll imaginable has decided
> to proffer their "wisdom" here...but, actually, that doesn't bother
> me as much as the number of responses wherein readers seem to lend
> credibility to the trolls' opinions...if that reflects society ingeneral,
> then no wonder Madoff was so successful.
>
>
> On Feb 06 09:33 AM gvsmitty19 wrote:
"This article posting is next to those who have been paid for their financial advice for decades and are properly educated. "
Well, most of those "geniuses" and so-called professionals were totally wrong about this market and economy the last two years and their stubborn "buy and hold" dinosaur advice has devastated the finances of the people who put their trust in them... effectively wiping out the retirement dreams of millions of Americans.
On Feb 06 03:55 PM phdinsuntanning wrote:
> Alex, good point in China and commodities,
> great shot term play with nsdqs,
> who is buying gld over 900? all the lemmings,
> you are making money and all the rest is BS!
>
AND Bernie Madoff was the toast of Wall Street.
I don't see what harm anybody can do that hasn't already been done by "qualified" professionals. Whether I read it on Yahoo or Bloomberg or see it on CNBC, I'm not going to follow anyone's advice without doing my homework.
This time around the indices were not at the same level of ridiculous P/E mutilples before the meltdown. In addition the bottom should be at mutliples of 10 or lower, but that does not mean today is the bottom. The historical average is around 14 times earnings, but earnings can keep declining.
This time around the market fell out from under the indices and it is the economics that will need to improve. Given current debt loads (private and public) with more piling up, I do not see a sustainable recovery.
As far as other comments on this SA article, I find the unvetted and unrebuttable media completely unreliable. I also find the experts from Wall Street have a complete conflict of interest.
Bloggers often start the ball rollling. If I was journalist, I would have favorite sites to check. Some journalists\editors have even commented about it here on SA.
On Feb 07 12:27 PM dividendmachine wrote:
> Market is oversold.The last recession lasted a long time because
> stock prices of companies like MSFT JNJ KO PG WMT etc were 30 or
> more times earnings.Today those stocks are all cheap with PES between
> 10-14
>
> In the short term the market is a voting machine but in the long
> term its a weighing machine
www.youtube.com/watch?...
Check out my two, cool videos on the economy. Enjoy.
- While tech stocks have been relatively strong, the Dow is close to the bottom of its trading range.
- The cost of borrowing for companies is still excessively high.
- Commodity prices have risen (perhaps due to Chinese buying) with no support from the real economy. That poses risk to USO.
- Indian demand for gold has fallen, but the gold price is up, suggesting that there's buying by investors and speculators. (That might lead to volatility in GLD -- think about what happened to USO over the last year.)
- On the positive side, the corporate debt market is showing some signs of thawing.
Seeking Alpha provides a cross section of views from all walks of life. The Articles propose views, none of them will ever be able to Please everyone.
But I certainly like to read the commentaries when an article like this generates so many diverse comments.
The only guys that predicted this were thinking outside the box and were generally from outside the establishment.
Just about nobody on Wall Street could see the Wood for the Trees.
On Feb 07 08:32 AM Swedish investor wrote:
> Even the biggest of fools can sometimes make a good point....I realize
> the articles written on SA are mostly opinion and some fact.
> But, from these articles I get another viewpoint that may help in
> analysis of any given situation.
>
> In short, anything that stimulates further evaluation of one's own
> viewpoint has merit.
Frankly, we are in an environment where it is difficult to know who to trust.
If financial advisers were judged objectively and rewarded accordingly a great number of them would have been jailed.
On Feb 06 09:51 AM gvsmitty19 wrote:
> Larry,
>
> So you really think it's in the public's best interest to publish
> comments from anyone who wants on a financial page traveled by millions
> (whether they're qualified or not)?!
>
> This article posting is next to those who have been paid for their
> financial advice for decades and are properly educated. You don't
> see a problem with that?
>
> That's irresponsible at best and dangerous at worst.
On Feb 07 12:27 PM dividendmachine wrote:
> Market is oversold.The last recession lasted a long time because
> stock prices of companies like MSFT JNJ KO PG WMT etc were 30 or
> more times earnings.Today those stocks are all cheap with PES between
> 10-14
>
> In the short term the market is a voting machine but in the long
> term its a weighing machine
What we believe is that there is a rotation going on amongst holders of the metal. Namely if fresh individuals elect to commit fresh savings to gold, instead of treasuries, etc they will be doing so in quantities that are well above whatever gold they'd purchase for consumer purposes in form of jewelry. As a matter of pure statistics, one of our advisory accts who is a big tier goldsmith, buys 3x 400oz bars approximately every 6/8 weeks. For our discretionary accts, our recent diversification transaction amounted to 2'200 oz - i.e. 2 months of the goldsmith's historical demand (which he says is due to contract BTW).
Add the recent demand in the gold ETFs (GLD, IAU, ZGLD, etc) and you can easily see that whatever slack from the jewelry market is being IMHO amply compensated by investment flows.
The only worrisome aspect is that the retail investment buildup might be easily reversed by the same weak-handed, click-n-sell ETF investors.
Kind regards,
StudioPhi
On Feb 06 10:41 AM goatfarmer wrote:
> I've stopped reading Seeking Alpha.
Key to that view is that the driving force for the US economy for the last two decades if not longer, the American consumer, has left the building. With the threat of growing layoffs, the disappearance of massive chunks of wealth in home and retirement accounts, and huge debt balances, the American consumer has no choice. He/she can only afford to meet immediately necessary expenses, minimum debt payments, and maybe put a few pennies in savings.
I believe this change is structural and, therefore, long term. It's going to be a long road to hoe before the consumption factor in GDP returns to the levels we say a year or two ago.
You need real traction and a catalyst to really make the market keep going up. We are still treading water.
For now, any rally will be an opportunity to get out of winning positions. The only stock I will keep during a time is Allied Irish Banks since this one probably felt the bottom of capitulation and pessimism. Rest of the market has to do what AIB did.
Amazingly though, a lot unqualified Joe 6 pack idiots bailed out of equities into cash between Q4 '07 and Q2 '08, especially when events at Wamu and Bear started foretelling what was to come because, as this author titled his article, they had a "bad feeling about this market."
Just who is "qualified" anymore? Remember, all the supposedly "qualified" gurus called Roubini a Dr. Doom nutcase and dismissed his analysis.
1. The article is really not that compelling, but I am in favor of freedom of speech. So if you don't like the Filonov pierogi, don't come back for seconds.
2 You "professionals" should be a little more contrite, seeing as how a) Monkeys throwing darts do a better job picking stocks, and b) "The smartest guys in the room" just completely f***ed up the world economy with their fancy derivatives based Mongolian ( Mongoloid?) cluster f***.
How is it that the collective world of finance is so stupid that they can buy and sell things they are paid a prince's ransom to understand, yet obviously don't, and in turn ruin their own companies, their shareholders, and the global economy. "Professionals", what a joke. The only difference between these professionals and a girl sitting under a red light in a window in Amsterdam is that she understands what she is selling.
On Feb 06 02:31 PM fatcat wrote:
> It feels like program trading and now,short covering,ahead of the
> stimulus crap coming next week.
>
> With horrible news everywhere around the world,why would you be a
> buyer here?
Let me suggest a reason: We read it because despite the "rosy facts" we are instinctively doubtful. We fear he may be right. And we respect his clarity? Remember, even the most savvy, well educated, most lauded, degree decorated investor in the end will admit the market is moved by emotion and not fact... "Up on greed and down on fear". Could it be that there is, still, more fear than we like to admit?
Just a little example: I made 32% profit in 2007, and 32% profit in 2008. I have degree in Mathematics/Computer Science. My track record is better than 99% of so called finance professionals. Does it mean, that I cannot express my opinions at SA?
I support the author here. He has a right to express his opinion, and we the readers have an option not to read it. The article is not terribly informative - but so what? Go to CNBC - you will have US citizens there, and the finance/economics professionals. Just follow their advice. Good Luck!
You know what had happened to our economy in the past 5 horrid months. My only conclusion is that either they were all "Yes Men", or were inept to give him advice.
This is a good question taking into account a flood of propaganda coming from official "Big Media" and the major political Parties.
The Internet became the only somewhat open media window for substantive discussions. At the same time, major Internet discussion forums are still under certain control by "the Big Boys and Girls" using "report abuse", "article does not corresponde to forum standards", etc.,
The other way to delute substantive discussions is to flood a website with "talk show discussions". This article is all about. It has very little substanse but it has many "ifs" speculations.
Consequently, considering all ifs and maybes, I am for open discussions without any censorship.
----------------------...
This is a quote that was blogged:
The people that bend the rules GET PAID! You too can bend the rules by printing out fake paystubs w-2 w2 1099 forms using
PROOFOFEMPLOYMENT.com
Buy the home car or get a huge irs tax refund just for being you!
Do what you have to do to get yours! EVERYONE ELSE DID
FAKEPAYCHECKSTUBS.com
Using subjective, non-analytic analysis, while all the while mocking the scientific method often leads to catastrophic outcomes! And the muddled masses scratch their collective (fill in the preferred anatomic area) and cry out why must it be this way and what a horribly jammed unemployment line before me!
People have realized, that with the Yahoo! exposure, anyone can spread information very, very rapidly, true or not, dire more than usual, and do people really want to trust this information.
Can it move the market? If some 3rd party wanted to take down a sector, would it be enough to have 20 people express negative, apparently well reasoned opinions on SA and other target sites.
Does this make it worth while to actually find out who reads this stuff?
Fundamental rule of espionage, the level of effort will rise to the value of information.
I leave it at that.
On Feb 06 09:33 AM gvsmitty19 wrote:
> Seriously, who are these guys?!?! Are they really getting paid for
> this "information???"
>
> His bio said he was an IT professional with no financial background
> or financial education whatsover. He wasn't even a U.S. citizen
> til 2006.
>
> Yet here his analysis sits on Yahoo's Apple page for millions to
> see. No offense to you, Alex, I'm sure you're a nice guy... but
> give me a break!!!
>
> Seeking Alpha has become a joke.
Some thoughts: Our editorial staff works hard to filter the volume of posts we receive, with quality our primary goal. Remember, however, that quality can be a subjective attribute. Which is why we offer watchlists. It's a feature available to everyone and great way to filter for quality on your own. Plus it's an effective way of voting with your keyboard. It lets us know whose material readers value. And it's infinitely better than trashing a contributor whose opinion you don't agree with.
To those of you who have suffered, or have been traumatized by having read an article , only to discover that the author has no "professional financial background": I cannot begin to imagine the pain and sufferring you have endured, yet you were still able, through all of that pain, to somehow get to your keyboard and warn us-- to sound the alarm to save all of us...well, that is really special.
On Feb 10 09:11 AM Amish Rake Fighter wrote:
> First of all, intolerance should be CRUSHED !
> <snip>
I agree, but that's ironic, no?
HardToLove