Friday, April 24, 2009
I'm offline until around 9 p.m. ET
I'm traveling to Washington, D.C., on the first leg of my trip back east for Tuesday's annual shareholders meeting. Comments won't be moderated until then. Yikes! Short iPhone post.
17 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteU Rock Jim!
ReplyDeleteSick of that Anon @#$#@$
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteJim, what would you do if following the shareholder meeting, Dubow invited you up to his office for a meeting to address your hate issues and any of the factual inaccuracies that you publish on this blog on a daily basis? Would you accept, decline, maybe? Or would you shit yourself right there in front of all the folks in from New York?
ReplyDeleteWhat is with all of the gay hate on this blog. I know a LOT of college and pro football players who are living closeted lives because of the likes of people who say crap about gays. Sorry to burst your bubbles sports guys, but what does it really matter who and what Jim does? I know a lot of "straight" guys who end up in threesomes with another guy and end up messing around. WHO CARES! Jim doesn't let his sexuality impact his content so for those abusive posters, please just move on and deal with your own issues.
ReplyDelete@8:54 p.m.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you assume that the people doing the gay-bashing are sports guys?
That's quite the broad brush you're using there.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"Oh, he'd shit himself. Big time.
ReplyDeleteBut he'll already have his thumb up his ass, just like the last time. We'll hear much more big talk from him before the meeting than during it."
Looks like corporates e-mail goons are working overtime tonight.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteBecause all gay bashers must be sports guys, and everyone who doesn't harbor an irrational hatred for Gannett must be working for corporate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete8:43 pm: Your question is based on a false premise, so I cannot answer it. Try again.
ReplyDeleteWhat false premise is that, Jim? The whole question was a hypothetical: what would Jim do if Dubow invited him in for a meeting?
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps the false premise is that anyone in that room gives a shit that Jim Hopkins is in attendance?
Your false premise is the incorrect assumption that I hate Gannett. As I've stated repeatedly: I do not hate Gannett.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question: I would first ask Dubow why he wanted to answer my questions in private -- and out of earshot of other shareholders.
You do know about SEC Regulation FD, right?
Jim, you're wrong. You do realize that top management meets regularly with large shareholders to address their concerns.
ReplyDeleteYou certainly do not qualify as a large shareholder, and I'd be interested for you to disclose the exact stake that you have in Gannett Co.
SEC Regulations, as you apparently don't understand, simply require that management does not selectively disclose information to certain investors and not others. There is no regulation that would ever forbid a private meeting between company management and a shareholder. In the event that material information was made available in one of these private meetings, the same information would have to be made available at the same time to all of the company's shareholders.
More importantly though, Jim, your response points to your complete lack of cajones. Rather than seizing opportunities (granted, we're discussing hypotheticals here), you prefer, time and time again, to hide behind obscure rules and regulations--and indeed, your incorrect interpretation of such regulations--so that you do not actually have to engage in any sort of meaningful, productive, discourse.
You are an uninformed coward.