Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FB Big Loss Despite Almost 1 Billion Users  
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2569 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3132 times:

Not good news for those that invested unfortunately.

Shares are down nearly 30% from the listing price, they are now only worth $US23.94   

Where to from here I wonder, up or down ?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/world...-billion-users-20120727-22wxr.html

[Edited 2012-07-26 15:18:57]


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13815 posts, RR: 63
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3105 times:

In the end Facebook et al are not actually producing anything. They are just a fad.

Jan


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1802 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3090 times:

Two things come to mind:

1) Duh. IPOs are incredibly expensive ventures. Combine that with a decreased share price since IPO, you've got yourself an operating loss for your first public quarter.

2) The non-business media emphasizes earnings way too much, as if it is the single metric that defines success. Cash flow is as important as earnings, but of the three articles I've read, none of them talk about their cash situation. At the end of the day, cash is king.

Regardless of the above, I still think they're overvalued. I see more troubles down the road.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3089 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 1):

By that token, Google aren't producing anything either - are they just a fad?


User currently offlinekpitrrat From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3075 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 3):
By that token, Google aren't producing anything either - are they just a fad?

Google itself is a tool that is used by Billions every day. People see the value in searching for businesses, directions, maps, and even pointless trivia. Not to mention advertising.

Facebook has advertising, along side a page full of narcissistic banter that you are way more focused on anyways. Other than that the real value I see in facebook is staying connected to people. Which, in this day and age we have tools known as cell phones, e-mail, text messaging, and the Twitter machine that overloaded today. I could say we also have face to face conversation but that is only used as a last resort and is quite outdated.   

Everyone wants to be on FB but they still realize that its actual uses are limited to slandering others, posting sappy song lines, drawing attention to ones self, and growing a farm.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3036 times:

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 4):

The difference between Google and Facebook is that Google wants to be Facebook...

Facebook has a lot more than you think - they have a serious amount of demographic data on near to a billion people. Highly specific, highly optimised data. That's something google has been after for half a decade now, and also something they been failing at for just as long.

Facebook has everything google wants. Give it a year, and you shall see...


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8216 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3023 times:

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 4):
Everyone wants to be on FB but they still realize that its actual uses are limited to slandering others, posting sappy song lines, drawing attention to ones self, and growing a farm.

Same with real life, depending on your attitude.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2033 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2921 times:

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 4):
Everyone wants to be on FB but they still realize that its actual uses are limited to slandering others, posting sappy song lines, drawing attention to ones self, and growing a farm.

  

Facebook, in it's current format, is just a carbon copy of Myspace, and the smaller social networking sites before that. The only difference being that people can clog up their pages with ridiculous games, which automatically spam and annoy the hell out of everyone else. It's likely that some other smartass college kid will come up with something better and everyone will eventually jump ship.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 day ago) and read 2903 times:

Quoting TheCol (Reply 7):
Facebook, in it's current format, is just a carbon copy of Myspace, and the smaller social networking sites before that. The only difference being that people can clog up their pages with ridiculous games, which automatically spam and annoy the hell out of everyone else. It's likely that some other smartass college kid will come up with something better and everyone will eventually jump ship.

I had a lengthy discussion on this exact topic not that long ago with someone - the difference between MySpace and Facebook is the interconnected network of accounts on Facebook, because that is what makes having an account so important. And its also what makes it hard to leave Facebook.

MySpace was really nothing more than a web page supplier - you signed up, you got your own web page and web address and you could customise it to a degree. People visited your page, all was good.

Facebook brings a lot of content from other people into your page, it keeps you well informed and keeps others informed of your activities - no more trawling other peoples pages to get information, its all posted on your own wall.

If you leave and go somewhere else, you lose the interconnectedness because your friends would also have to move - and thats like corralling cats.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15501 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 2899 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 1):

In the end Facebook et al are not actually producing anything. They are just a fad

They have a huge database of user information. There are assets there, but like quite a few internet things, going from a fad or movement to a business isn't the easiest thing. There was talk of a second tech bubble, which I tend to agree with, pointing out that a lot of "paper value" and people paying a lot of money for companies that don't necessarily make much money. Things like Instagram are cool ideas, but going from cool idea to profitable business can be kind of rocky.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3829 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 2896 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

Its also worth noting that Facebooks reach stretches far beyond its own website - Facebook is collecting more directly linked demographic data than Google does, because it has Facebook Like links on practically every page out there - Even Amazon has it! Those links are almost always collecting data about what you are viewing, how long you linger on the page, even which parts of the page you have on screen.

And thats ignoring the ever increasing trend of having Facebook Connect as a sites login or the Facebook Comments as a sites discussion system.

Google only really collects loosely linked demographic data - Facebook has extremely tightly linked demographic data. The difference between the two when selling advertisers space is in the order of pennies for Googles, dollars for Facebooks.


User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2569 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 23 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 10):
Google only really collects loosely linked demographic data - Facebook has extremely tightly linked demographic data. The difference between the two when selling advertisers space is in the order of pennies for Googles, dollars for Facebooks.

I think this article sums it up pretty well.
A friend passed it on to me, sort of explains it all really. FB is not going narrower, which according to this article, is the wrong move. System platforms are getting smaller and more highly focused, I suppose, to tune into the customers more.

http://dougcurling.wordpress.com/201.../why-facebook-is-a-bad-investment/



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 18 hours ago) and read 2800 times:

Another drain on FB stock is Zynga. Another failed IPO...Their earnings report the day before FB's was a disaster

Zynga Posts Loss, Slashes Outlook, Shares Tank

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012...ise-loss-shares-down-more-than-30/



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11953 posts, RR: 25
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 1):
In the end Facebook et al are not actually producing anything. They are just a fad.

I've only been on the last few months, but I find that they provide a service that no one else can/does: connection to my family members all around the country and all around the world.

I suppose I could have set up an e-mail list/group, but that is sooo 1990s.

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
The difference between Google and Facebook is that Google wants to be Facebook...

Yes, it's a misguided infatuation they have.

The main issue for both is: where will the growth come from?

Both are carrying huge market caps that presume the growth will happen.

Google thought it could grow by being FB, but they're a day late and a dollar short.

Quoting TheCol (Reply 7):
The only difference being that people can clog up their pages with ridiculous games, which automatically spam and annoy the hell out of everyone else.

One of the first things you have to learn to do is turn off apps yourself, and then turn off updates from all the rediculous games and media players that people use.

It seems FB doesn't make this as easy to do as they should, and they seem to change how to do it fairly often, but it's a skill that has to be mastered to make FB be of any use.

https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=121070141307903 shows how to block all updates from a given app.

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
I had a lengthy discussion on this exact topic not that long ago with someone - the difference between MySpace and Facebook is the interconnected network of accounts on Facebook, because that is what makes having an account so important. And its also what makes it hard to leave Facebook.

Indeed, but as above, where is the growth going to come from? I don't think FB is going away, but it may be in transition from growth company to mature company.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinedl021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 15 hours ago) and read 2740 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 2):
2) The non-business media emphasizes earnings way too much, as if it is the single metric that defines success. Cash flow is as important as earnings, but of the three articles I've read, none of them talk about their cash situation. At the end of the day, cash is king.

Every time I see a statement like this I go nuts. Earnings are the product of a successful business, and the metric that represents the bottom line. Everything else is ancillary to varying degrees. At the end of the day your balance sheet/P&L are what's important. Cash can be nice, unless it's all owed to other people. Encumbered cash carries negative friction. It's better to have cash that's encumbered earning money rather than sitting there waiting to be spent.

Until the find a real way to monetize the assets Facebook holds in a major way it's going to be difficult to make FB a worthwhile venture for the average investor. It's so far worked out for the original stakeholders and their backers, but it remains to be seen what its going to do for the public buyers. People who bought at $39 are fairly pissed right now, and would like to see how the company is going to raise its value.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4482 posts, RR: 22
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 14 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 3):
By that token, Google aren't producing anything either - are they just a fad?

Motorola phones, Android OS, Google Fiber, Mapping Software, etc. So exactly what aren't they producing?  

You can at least physically hold a product in your hand made by Google or one of their subsidiaries whereas with Facebook (to my knowledge) you can't.



Any opinion/comment posted is that of my own and not that of Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3613 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

Google does produce a lot of valuable real world tools. just about every TV newscast these days shows a Google map display, for instance. Lots of businesses use their data and services.

FB has little other than the entertainment value and associated advertising space which, while valuable, is also subject to FB's popularity. And in a volatile internet environment in which most of the userbase are trendy 15-35 year old people, that can go as it came...
There might be a new Facebook just as it became the new Myspace. Then again, Google+ won't be it...

You also can't really talk much about diversification in FB's case, as most of their purchases concern services which use are linked with that of FB. This adds to the volatility of their business case.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1802 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 13 hours ago) and read 2691 times:

Quoting dl021 (Reply 14):
Earnings are the product of a successful business, and the metric that represents the bottom line. Everything else is ancillary to varying degrees. At the end of the day your balance sheet/P&L are what's important.

I agree with most of that, but it's assinine to gauge "overall success", by any definition, based on a single metric. In the investing world (which it sounds like you are very familliar with) it is dangerous to be tunnel vision on earnings.

Quoting dl021 (Reply 14):
Cash can be nice, unless it's all owed to other people. Encumbered cash carries negative friction. It's better to have cash that's encumbered earning money rather than sitting there waiting to be spent.

My statement wasn't based on the assumption that cash is tied up in debt. I was speaking more generally than that. In Facebook's case, I wasn't even able to find the actual official earnings report; none of the articles sourced it   

Anyway, my point is that I wouldn't cast a doom-and-gloom shadow over Facebook for a quarterly earnings loss. For all we know, they could be cash-flow positive with minimal debt.

Quoting dl021 (Reply 14):
People who bought at $39 are fairly pissed right now

As they should be...at themselves. There were so many warning signs that this was a bad buy. But I guess that's how the game works: risk and reward  



Flying refined.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2501 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):
Not good news for those that invested unfortunately.

Shares are down nearly 30% from the listing price, they are now only worth $US23.94  

The experts were saying that it was a fool's stock anyway.

Now can someone explain to me the point of the whole timeline thing?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8216 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 18):
Now can someone explain to me the point of the whole timeline thing?

More efficient raping of people's identities and personal info to sell to megacorp, netbots and soon, verify via aerial drones.  


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 16):
FB has little other than the entertainment value and associated advertising space which, while valuable, is also subject to FB's popularity. And in a volatile internet environment in which most of the userbase are trendy 15-35 year old people, that can go as it came...

When you first sign up for FB there's that initial honeymoon period. It's neat finding people you have not heard from in years. Then it becomes boring. Then it becomes annoying because there are people who want to share every detail of their day to day lives, political and religious views, games they want you to play etc. Go a week without checking your FB page an see it filled up with that stuff. Then you end up unsubscribing to to people, which makes you wonder why you even signed up in the first place.


User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 2930 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

I think it is ridiculous when people say Facebook is a fad, it will go away, it will become the new myspace to another social media service.

We cannot really compare it to Myspace, with the size it has reached.

Myspace had what, 25 million users? Facebook has 1 billion. It was much easier leaving Myspace. I had some friends with it, many without it, a knew nobody over 30 with it...

Nowadays, practically everyone I know uses facebook, and that includes all age groups. And so many other services use facebook as well, including comment sections in many forms of media, log in details to many different services (aka Spotify), and many companies use facebook as well as twitter in order to communicate with their clients.

When facebook came, it got a lot of users, they attracted friends and family, and they eventually attracted myspace users over, killing myspace.

When the next service comes, it will attract some users, but I cannot see it converting the required amount of facebook users to get everyone over. And people just cannot be bothered with having half of their friends and family on one service, and half on another. When I tried Google+, I found it to be very good, just not needed, and a waste of time when I already had all my friends on facebook, and only a few on Google+ trying it like I did.

I'm not saying facebook won't ever die. It will, but not to the hands of a competing service offering basically the same. The next must be so innovative, and outside of the current form of social media (don't know what this will be, I wish I did, as that would make me a billionaire).

I do believe however, facebook was majorly overpriced on the stock market, and growth will slow down substantially, unless they can crack the Chinese market, which seems to have their own version of just about every big IT service already. The stocks might fall some more, but not much in my opinion.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2398 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 21):

Excellent point and I agree with all of your comments.
I find it funny when some people make big announcements about deleting or taking a break from Facebook, only to return within 24 hours.
It's the adult version of running away from home.  
Quoting LMP737 (Reply 20):
Then it becomes annoying because there are people who want to share every detail of their day

I hate those updates when people tell the world that they have diarrhea. I mean do we really need to know this?


Quoting LMP737 (Reply 20):
political and religious views,

I avoid that on Facebook. I rather do that here in the non-aviation forums. 



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 11953 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 20):
Then it becomes annoying because there are people who want to share every detail of their day to day lives, political and religious views, games they want you to play etc. Go a week without checking your FB page an see it filled up with that stuff. Then you end up unsubscribing to to people, which makes you wonder why you even signed up in the first place.

Or you take 10 minutes to learn how to turn off updates from the most annoying apps, and turn the update level to the most annoying people to "important updates".

I've turned off updates from three music playing apps and two game apps and all is well on that front.

I've reduced the updates to "important" from two people (one who clearly is an attention "diva" and another who's a potty mouthed teenage girl) and that fixed that, no unsubscribing needed.

If that doesn't work, then you just may have to consider who your FB friends are and why you find them so annoying...

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 21):

Nowadays, practically everyone I know uses facebook, and that includes all age groups. And so many other services use facebook as well, including comment sections in many forms of media, log in details to many different services (aka Spotify), and many companies use facebook as well as twitter in order to communicate with their clients.

Personally I'm not fond of media comments being funneled through FB - it puts FB into the middle of something I prefer that they'd just stay out of, which is the relationship between the media and the public.

I dont/wont turn on FB apps so I don't use those add-ons anyway.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4252 posts, RR: 29
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 1):
In the end Facebook et al are not actually producing anything. They are just a fad.

  

I have no doubt social networking is here to stay, and stay in a big way. But FB will NOT be the engine of social networking beyond a few more years, at least not in its current form. The service is simply just too broad to sustain its viability as a useful tool of the social networking arena. It will morph into something more specialized while other players take up a niche role, too. And if it doesn't, well, it may become another MySpace - a has-been.

Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 4):
Google itself is a tool that is used by Billions every day. People see the value in searching for businesses, directions, maps, and even pointless trivia. Not to mention advertising.

Facebook has advertising, along side a page full of narcissistic banter that you are way more focused on anyways. Other than that the real value I see in facebook is staying connected to people. Which, in this day and age we have tools known as cell phones, e-mail, text messaging, and the Twitter machine that overloaded today. I could say we also have face to face conversation but that is only used as a last resort and is quite outdated.   

Everyone wants to be on FB but they still realize that its actual uses are limited to slandering others, posting sappy song lines, drawing attention to ones self, and growing a farm.

And that is the very reason why FB in its current form will not last. When I joined FB it was fun to catch up with old acquaintances and see how past friends were doing - didn't need to do that with current friends and acquaintance because I already kept in touch with them if I needed to. After a while, though, the luster wore off and it's now at the point where it's an annoyance and I only log in rarely.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 16):
There might be a new Facebook just as it became the new Myspace. Then again, Google+ won't be it...

I wouldn't discount Google+ just yet. If FB had to do it all over again from scratch and reinvent themselves, I would be willing to bet they would look very similar to Google+.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 21):
I think it is ridiculous when people say Facebook is a fad, it will go away, it will become the new myspace to another social media service.

We cannot really compare it to Myspace, with the size it has reached.

Myspace had what, 25 million users? Facebook has 1 billion. It was much easier leaving Myspace. I had some friends with it, many without it, a knew nobody over 30 with it...

Nowadays, practically everyone I know uses facebook, and that includes all age groups. And so many other services use facebook as well, including comment sections in many forms of media, log in details to many different services (aka Spotify), and many companies use facebook as well as twitter in order to communicate with their clients.

When facebook came, it got a lot of users, they attracted friends and family, and they eventually attracted myspace users over, killing myspace.

When the next service comes, it will attract some users, but I cannot see it converting the required amount of facebook users to get everyone over. And people just cannot be bothered with having half of their friends and family on one service, and half on another. When I tried Google+, I found it to be very good, just not needed, and a waste of time when I already had all my friends on facebook, and only a few on Google+ trying it like I did.

Interesting post, but, very respectfully, I think it's highly short-sighted. People used to think Microsoft was the end-all to everything. Look at them today. Although still huge, people are coming to realize that there is life outside of Microsoft. And there are lots of other - and better in many cases - alternatives.

Technology is ever changing and to think something that is popular today will be popular tomorrow is very short-sighted.

Also, with regards to Google+ and the fact that most of your friends and family were on FB, the best advantage of Google+ is that your friends and family don't have to be joined up to the service to get updates from you when you post on it. You can configure it so that they get an email with a link to your Google+ post/photos. To my knowledge, FB does not offer this feature and to see a FB post you have to have an account and profile set up.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):
Or you take 10 minutes to learn how to turn off updates from the most annoying apps, and turn the update level to the most annoying people to "important updates".

That's the whole problem with FB. That 10 minutes that you allude to is far too long. Changing account settings should be easy and intuitive - and permanent. Every time I've ever tried to do anything with regards to changing a setting in FB it takes me a while to figure out what I'm changing and how it will impact everything. I've also had settings change without my knowledge. And I'm pretty techno-savvy. I think FB does it this way deliberately so that its users broadcast as much information about themselves as possible without realizing it (which is only to FB's advantage).



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
25 Revelation : Everyone is different. In my case, I have a lot of family members of all ages across the country and world, and FB is the main path to keep in touch
26 Marcus : If consumer technology has shown us anything in the last 30 years is that anything is possible, big companies fail and small companies prosper….big
27 redflyer : It's a push model in a way, but highly specialized. Based on your circle of friends you get to decide who sees it. And even then you can opt-out peop
28 Post contains images LMP737 : Gues we can agree on that. Or do what I do and unsubscribe the people who fill up my FB page with crap.
29 ltbewr : One problem for Facebook is that ads don't show up much at all on i-Phones and smartphones with their relatively small screens vs. a laptop or home co
30 Revelation : It's funny you mention that, because that's what I do too. I really try to keep FB about being in contact with my family members. I have two relative
31 Post contains images TheCol : There's no denying that Facebook is the better product, which is why people flocked over to it, but, like Myspace, Facebook is eventually loosing it'
32 Post contains links redflyer : And today the BBC is reporting that FB admits that 83 million of its user base is bogus. Personally, I think that number is way, way too low. I have a
33 GEEZER : I have only read about half of the posts so far; I think the biggest mistaken assumption most posters are making is, they are "measuring" everyone els
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
GM Posts 39 Billion Dollar (on Paper) Loss posted Wed Nov 7 2007 04:46:39 by Dtwclipper
Billion Dollar Cut To Programs Despite Surplus posted Wed Sep 27 2006 08:17:56 by SKYSERVICE_330
Celebrity Big Brother - Almost Finished Like This posted Fri Feb 3 2006 11:35:10 by WhiteHatter
$1 Billion In Aid Pledged WOW! Big Deal! posted Sat Jan 1 2005 12:20:20 by Russophile
Kmart Posts 1.45 Billion Loss posted Sat Jun 15 2002 10:55:39 by Adam84
So Who Likes Big Organs? posted Tue Jan 4 2011 18:23:55 by JBirdAV8r
Pornographic Film Shown On Big Airport Screen posted Sun Dec 19 2010 10:48:49 by keesje
Big Mall Near JFK Airport To Kill A Few Hours posted Thu Dec 16 2010 11:22:59 by teahan
Bad Doctors Taking Big Payments From Drugmakers posted Thu Nov 18 2010 10:30:46 by Aaron747
Large Hadron Collider Creates 'mini Big Bang' posted Mon Nov 8 2010 09:35:46 by MadameConcorde