Peregrine Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Facebook Says It Gave Advertisers Inflated Video Metrics http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-23/facebook-says-it-gave-advertisers-inflated-video-view-metrics I don't think this is a big deal. Marketers have been overwhelmingly positive regarding the ROI's they're earning on Facebook's platform. They buy advertising based on ROI's, not based on FB's reporting metrics. How do they measure these ROIs? Curious because I've always been fairly skeptical about the benefits of video ads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winjitsu Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Facebook Says It Gave Advertisers Inflated Video Metrics http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-23/facebook-says-it-gave-advertisers-inflated-video-view-metrics I don't think this is a big deal. Marketers have been overwhelmingly positive regarding the ROI's they're earning on Facebook's platform. They buy advertising based on ROI's, not based on FB's reporting metrics. How do they measure these ROIs? Curious because I've always been fairly skeptical about the benefits of video ads. I can confirm glorysk87's comment. I am currently working with a portfolio company that is using an ad agency and the ad budget will almost entirely be on facebook ads. Facebook has a scary amount of info on people that allows for very specific targeting. Also learned twitter is low ROI, instagram was low, but getting better. When creating a fb ad, you set a goal such as click through to website, or likes on your fb page, or email address signup to your mailing list. ROI in the advertising world is the inverse of cost of customer acquisition, e.g. we spent $100 and got 50 email sign ups. Increasing ROI means decreasing COCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valueinvesting101 Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Facebook Says It Gave Advertisers Inflated Video Metrics http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-23/facebook-says-it-gave-advertisers-inflated-video-view-metrics I don't think this is a big deal. Marketers have been overwhelmingly positive regarding the ROI's they're earning on Facebook's platform. They buy advertising based on ROI's, not based on FB's reporting metrics. How do they measure these ROIs? Curious because I've always been fairly skeptical about the benefits of video ads. I can confirm glorysk87's comment. I am currently working with a portfolio company that is using an ad agency and the ad budget will almost entirely be on facebook ads. Facebook has a scary amount of info on people that allows for very specific targeting. Also learned twitter is low ROI, instagram was low, but getting better. When creating a fb ad, you set a goal such as click through to website, or likes on your fb page, or email address signup to your mailing list. ROI in the advertising world is the inverse of cost of customer acquisition, e.g. we spent $100 and got 50 email sign ups. Increasing ROI means decreasing COCA. What happens if lot advertisers are using FB and everyone is getting fair amount of likes and email addresses or even clicks on websites. Does that translate into increased revenue for the company? Is the relation sticky over last 5 years or declining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winjitsu Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 What happens if lot advertisers are using FB and everyone is getting fair amount of likes and email addresses or even clicks on websites. Does that translate into increased revenue for the company? Is the relation sticky over last 5 years or declining. Just to be clear there are two types of ROIs. When I talk to my ad buyer, their ROI is to get the cost per email lower (or whatever metric). We gave them a budget, call it 100k, and their goal is to play around with different ads/messaging until they find something that works really well, then spend all that money on placing that ad. Lets call this advertising ROI. My ROI, as an investor or business, is conversion of those emails into sales, then analyze my overall profit margin/cost. To be honest, I think interests aren't totally aligned in this industry. I think ad buyers will go wherever the cost for acquisition is lowest. Based on my conversation with a few firms, it seems the preference is for facebook and google. Facebook's advantage is their data that they have on you, which I see as the moat and hard for the other platforms to replicate (everything you like, what articles you read etc) and their scale. See http://ghostinfluence.com/the-ultimate-retaliation-pranking-my-roommate-with-targeted-facebook-ads/. Most of the time, this highly targeted advertising will make it the cheapest option. There really isn't anything preventing you from moving to a different platform. With larger ad budgets, you'll see a mix of facebook, google adwords, and some playing around with instagram/snapchat/twitter/taboola etc. In addition to ad buyers, we're using a PR firm to get us into top publications/websites. This is clearly a substitute (but ultimately ads + PR work together). Influencer/celebrity marketing also another substitute (see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-14/how-daniel-wellington-made-a-200-million-business-out-of-cheap-watches). Anyways that's all I know on the client side of things. Best of luck on your research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowAppreciation Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Facebook Says It Gave Advertisers Inflated Video Metrics http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-23/facebook-says-it-gave-advertisers-inflated-video-view-metrics I don't think this is a big deal. Marketers have been overwhelmingly positive regarding the ROI's they're earning on Facebook's platform. They buy advertising based on ROI's, not based on FB's reporting metrics. I worked in the industry for a number of years, and while many agencies/advertisers are probably quite upset, I don't think it changes much in the long run. Advertisers are still going to spend on FB. This is a blip. However, the industry as a whole has many skeletons in the closet. Digital advertising is full of fraud, hucksters masquerading as "tech" companies, and wasted advertising spend. Further, you have to trust the numbers reported by FB and GOOG for what they are. While they—and especially FB—go to great lengths to ensure their walled gardens are clean, I think many would be shocked at how inefficient and wasteful digital advertising is. Despite all the promises of technology being able to target more precisely, spend more efficiently, and measure results more granularly, I'm not convinced the advertising industry of today is any more valuable than that of 50 years ago. Brands are still wasting 50% of their budgets, and we still don't know which half. But I do know that advertising spend has to go somewhere, and that over time it will move more and more online. This only benefits Facebook, and a small change in one metric isn't going to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayGatsby Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Nobody else sees a precipitous drop in original content on their facebook walll? I have a short position and am trying to be objective. I realize that revenue growth has been phenomenal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 New revenue driver for Facebook. Workplace by Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajc Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 New revenue driver for Facebook. Workplace by Facebook I'd prefer it if they got the new Marketplace feature to take off, but if Workplace could succeed then that'd clearly be great too. My reasoning is that most countries still need Taobao/eBay/Craigslist type platforms in order for e-commerce to become a simpler thing. Facebook is obviously extremely well-positioned for this because they have a large enough concentration of users for the network effects to work quickly and mean something, and they already have the required online infrastructure. Even if they can only establish themselves as the 2nd biggest e-commerce business in a few nations where big e-commerce companies already exist (eg. Nigeria with Jumia), that'd still be a massive long-term win for the company. If you look at the business model like those listed above where escrow accounts are often used to build user trust in the system, you can also see how Facebook would be the perfect partner because it's the only place that basically represents your real world identity online, it has the technology to handle money, and it has a globally-known, reliable brand. The company already has money transmitter licences in the US and elsewhere and now with Messenger enabling payments, it's becoming increasingly evident that they're competing like crazy to get into this arena. Messenger's hiring of Anand Chandrasekaran was definitely a good move in this regard, given that the guy is super smart and has worked at the top of both Bharti Airtel (messaging) and Snapdeal (e-commerce) in charge of creative product solutions. A few more points to buttress this argument: Online retail is currently a far bigger market than apps that address inefficiencies in workplace communication and numerous other activities. Not to throw shade at Slack, which I think is an excellent company, but there's probably a limit to how much a business will pay per employee. I'm open to having my ignorance exposed here by someone with more expertise, but I think it'll take a while before Slack, or Asana, or Facebook Workplace can charge more than $50 per employee in the developed world for their services and clearly elsewhere that number will be far less. That said, I appreciate the fact that for every company Facebook can sign up to this service the more likely it is they'll have a shopfront page as well and transact via the platform. So these two Facebook services are no doubt totally aligned. Business Insider released a story just the other day based on a Morgan Stanley report that shows Amazon users spend $544 per year and Amazon Prime users spend $2486 annually. If you just take a rough look at numbers in China, or a number of other less-developed countries it's hard to argue that for now e-commerce isn't a far bigger market opportunity. Clearly GMV is not in any way equivalent to revenue, but I think this is where it gets somewhat interesting. If you take a look at Alibaba for instance and Alipay specifically, you'll see a couple things.... One is that Alipay is the biggest player in a total and growing market of $500 billion worth of transaction volume per quarter. Another is that they offer asset management services for individuals via Yu'e Bao which currently has $100 billion of AUM and increasing. Finally, they also make microloans to Taobao sellers, offer insurance products, have their own bank (MYBank) for the unbanked in rural areas, and own a credit scoring business. I think when you put that those kind of businesses together with maybe an extremely minimal fee on transactions or some type of targeted advertising revenue for Facebook to grow its existing advertising income and you multiply that by a few billion people, then the potential for a business like that if executed properly might be really significant. Having gone through that though, I do think that what Slack, Asana, and now Workplace do and will try to do is an excellent opportunity. For big corporations that have annual earnings per employee in the 10's of 1000's of dollars, I don't see a good reason why they shouldn't pay $100 or $200 per year for something that can be shown to increase productivity and improve decision-making and communication. So, Workplace of Facebook can pull it off is unarguably a really nice market to go after especially because the margins are so much better. Still though, for the reasons listed above Messenger, Whatsapp, and businesses like Marketplace remain my favorite aspects of the company's future growth prospects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooplaer23 Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 FB looks pretty attractive at this price, trading at about 22x consensus 2017 EPS. Management has signaled pretty clearly that growth will come down from 50%+ range as they slow down increases in ad-load, but the growth should still be strong relative to the valuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyli Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 FB looks pretty attractive at this price, trading at about 22x consensus 2017 EPS. Management has signaled pretty clearly that growth will come down from 50%+ range as they slow down increases in ad-load, but the growth should still be strong relative to the valuation. Keep quiet please.... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 FB looks pretty attractive at this price, trading at about 22x consensus 2017 EPS. Management has signaled pretty clearly that growth will come down from 50%+ range as they slow down increases in ad-load, but the growth should still be strong relative to the valuation. Keep quiet please.... :-) I don't think this forum can move the price on a $300bn+ company ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 FB looks pretty attractive at this price, trading at about 22x consensus 2017 EPS. Management has signaled pretty clearly that growth will come down from 50%+ range as they slow down increases in ad-load, but the growth should still be strong relative to the valuation. Keep quiet please.... :-) I don't think this forum can move the price on a $300bn+ company ;) Whale watch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LounginMKL Posted November 15, 2016 Share Posted November 15, 2016 *pick up the phone* "Blue horseshoe loves Facebook." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe689 Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 Initiating a position on this pullback. My company started advertising on Facebook almost 6 months. I have paid half what I have paid elsewhere and see over double the results. Great ROI. The key here is the "targeting". Facebook unlike Google and others, allows me to target my audience with a fine comb. Our company is very niche based, and being able to easily, and accurately target a certain age group, gender, education level, and even specific interests is HUGE for us. We have cut our google budget in half and have doubled our Facebook budget. I read that only 4 million advertisers on Facebook. However, there are 60 million businesses that have pages but are not yet advertising. Based on my results, I expect their advertising portion of their revenue to outperform. On a side note, I really do not enjoy Facebook spending less than hour per week. But I am sort of an introvert, antisocial. But I need an account. Keeping up connections is huge. People announce their new baby on FB before making phone calls. If you are not on FB, you miss major life events of your friends and family! Facebook will not shrink for a very very long time IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hjorth Posted January 19, 2017 Share Posted January 19, 2017 Facebook to build its third server center outside US in Odense. It's actually just in my back yard, just about 7 kms from me. This will be very good for the city, and for the regional utility Energi Fyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 https://stratechery.com/2017/manifestos-and-monopolies/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajc Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 https://stratechery.com/2017/manifestos-and-monopolies/ I call bullshit. I read the manifesto when it came out and it was fine. I think Facebook becomes the equivalent of a real world passport or ID document and that's all to the good. It's the obvious solution to encourage global citizenship over national citizenship. Part of what Zuckerberg seemed to get at is Facebook is ideally situated to allow people to participate directly in the political process instead of being represented by others. A few 100 years ago only royals and land-owners had the vote. Currently we have representative democracy. Recently, India has seen a push for voting via SMS. Facebook is the best platform available for this stuff. All of which goes a long way to contradicting Thompson's point because what's more empowering and decentralized than that. Another thing Thompson completely misses is that Facebook's recent actions on security authentication and news accuracy are actually consistent with creating a fair and responsible environment for all. Far more so than most governments and countries do. So, how exactly is this a problem? Why complain about a bigger system that's way better. His view of government's relative purity and efficiency is hopelessly naive, and they're clearly the only real alternative available to us. The other point is a system with a number of big players is not naturally better than one with a dominant player. What matters is the commitment and ability of either to a working system with high standards that creates the most good. Imagine for a second that Facebook was limited in size, and Twitter as well as Snapchat were given extra space. Does anyone think Dorsey and Spiegel are nearly as reflective and conscientious about issues of speech, fairness, and good governance? Dorsey can't even ban racists, trolls, and every other type of asshole off of his service even when they're openly pointed out, and while Spiegel is not that bad there are some pretty messed up issues at Snap regarding how they keep employees in the dark, fire entire departments on a whim, and how management plans to not give ordinary shareholders a single voting right. Thanks, but Facebook is easily the best existing option for a global online community - and that definitely includes any existing government programs. Maybe one reason they're big is their integrity and professionalism, not the other way around? So, Thompson's argument is stupid because it applies a silly formula instead of judging the issues on their merits. The telecom business sucks at customer service even with two very big players and two mid-size ones, and Amazon rocks even though it almost solely dominates e-commerce. The issue is culture, execution, and incentives, not size. Especially at the level that Thompson is talking about. I'm so far deep in the opposing camp, I'm practically underground. Thompson's argument is dangerous and based on some incredibly nonsensical assumptions and silly reasoning. The world would be far better off with a fair system run by a benevolent and ever so slightly dictatorial company, than by a collection of companies/governments most of whom don't know shit about execution, openness, participation, or all of the above. If Facebook's quality levels drop off then lets talk, but in the meantime it's a safe environment and delivery that's the priority. And, if it weren't the case, people would simply leave Facebook and go to the next best alternative no matter how small. That would then become the new dominant player. It's how tech works and why companies in the space almost always have to compete harder than anyone to stay ahead. Does anyone other than Thompson really think every Facebook weakness won't be targeted by some new startup from now until forever? His arguments here are moronic on so many levels, it really is incredibly hard to know whether he's actually being serious or if he's so busy writing everyday that he occasionally prefers simply not to think about what he's doing at all. Disclosure: I own Facebook stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abyli Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 https://stratechery.com/2017/manifestos-and-monopolies/ I call bullshit. I read the manifesto when it came out and it was fine. I think Facebook becomes the equivalent of a real world passport or ID document and that's all to the good. It's the obvious solution to encourage global citizenship over national citizenship. Part of what Zuckerberg seemed to get at is Facebook is ideally situated to allow people to participate directly in the political process instead of being represented by others. A few 100 years ago only royals and land-owners had the vote. Currently we have representative democracy. Recently, India has seen a push for voting via SMS. Facebook is the best platform available for this stuff. All of which goes a long way to contradicting Thompson's point because what's more empowering and decentralized than that. Another thing Thompson completely misses is that Facebook's recent actions on security authentication and news accuracy are actually consistent with creating a fair and responsible environment for all. Far more so than most governments and countries do. So, how exactly is this a problem? Why complain about a bigger system that's way better. His view of government's relative purity and efficiency is hopelessly naive, and they're clearly the only real alternative available to us. The other point is a system with a number of big players is not naturally better than one with a dominant player. What matters is the commitment and ability of either to a working system with high standards that creates the most good. Imagine for a second that Facebook was limited in size, and Twitter as well as Snapchat were given extra space. Does anyone think Dorsey and Spiegel are nearly as reflective and conscientious about issues of speech, fairness, and good governance? Dorsey can't even ban racists, trolls, and every other type of asshole off of his service even when they're openly pointed out, and while Spiegel is not that bad there are some pretty messed up issues at Snap regarding how they keep employees in the dark, fire entire departments on a whim, and how management plans to not give ordinary shareholders a single voting right. Thanks, but Facebook is easily the best existing option for a global online community - and that definitely includes any existing government programs. Maybe one reason they're big is their integrity and professionalism, not the other way around? So, Thompson's argument is stupid because it applies a silly formula instead of judging the issues on their merits. The telecom business sucks at customer service even with two very big players and two mid-size ones, and Amazon rocks even though it almost solely dominates e-commerce. The issue is culture, execution, and incentives, not size. Especially at the level that Thompson is talking about. I'm so far deep in the opposing camp, I'm practically underground. Thompson's argument is dangerous and based on some incredibly nonsensical assumptions and silly reasoning. The world would be far better off with a fair system run by a benevolent and ever so slightly dictatorial company, than by a collection of companies/governments most of whom don't know shit about execution, openness, participation, or all of the above. If Facebook's quality levels drop off then lets talk, but in the meantime it's a safe environment and delivery that's the priority. And, if it weren't the case, people would simply leave Facebook and go to the next best alternative no matter how small. That would then become the new dominant player. It's how tech works and why companies in the space almost always have to compete harder than anyone to stay ahead. Does anyone other than Thompson really think every Facebook weakness won't be targeted by some new startup from now until forever? His arguments here are moronic on so many levels, it really is incredibly hard to know whether he's actually being serious or if he's so busy writing everyday that he occasionally prefers simply not to think about what he's doing at all. Disclosure: I own Facebook stock. Well said. Thumbs up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest roark33 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Thompson is paid to write, so he always reaches to be heard, i.e. taking fairly extreme points on issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I disagree, I think Thompson's arguments are much stronger than yours, and his position and prescriptions aren't even that extreme when you consider how a single controlling shareholder will control the platform on which a very very large fraction of global communications and access to news will take place, on a medium where things are pushed to people rather than pulled. You also project positions on Thompson that he doesn't actually hold. He even said that FB had incentives to try to stay fair and that he thought Zuckerberg had good intentions, but massive centralization of power + strongest network effect the world has ever seen + unforeseen consequences + implicit biases might be something we'll regret down the road. A lot of the things that you like about Facebook should be encouraged, but it shouldn't be given total carte blanche to own people's digital lives, which are increasingly just as real and important as their offline lives. Facebook is a business, and it might not always be so benign or run by trustworthy people. Of course the business argument if you're just thinking about that is for facebook to be left alone, but as someone who likes liberty and dislike those with too much power, I'm not sure that the best argument from a societal point of view. Industrial-era regulation isn't adapted to digital world. I think social graph portability should be a minimum so that people can at least own the IP of their "real world social networks" and use them on whichever service they want to use, rather than be trapped to the one that got critical mass first in this winner-takes-all networked world. That'd at least create the possibility of an escape valve if things go really bad, and it would keep FB on its toes a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottHall Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Seems like a reason to get long to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Seems like a reason to get long to me. Probably. Wasn't looking at it as an investment. It's not all about stocks in life. When it comes down to it, Facebook is an advertising company. I'm not sure an ad company should have this much global power. Might be fine for ten years, but it doesn't sound like such a good idea to have it entirely entrench itself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajc Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I disagree, I think Thompson's arguments are much stronger than yours, and his position and prescriptions aren't even that extreme when you consider how a single controlling shareholder will control the platform on which a very very large fraction of global communications and access to news will take place, on a medium where things are pushed to people rather than pulled. You also project positions on Thompson that he doesn't actually hold. He even said that FB had incentives to try to stay fair and that he thought Zuckerberg had good intentions, but massive centralization of power + strongest network effect the world has ever seen + unforeseen consequences + implicit biases might be something we'll regret down the road. A lot of the things that you like about Facebook should be encouraged, but it shouldn't be given total carte blanche to own people's digital lives, which are increasingly just as real and important as their offline lives. Facebook is a business, and it might not always be so benign or run by trustworthy people. Of course the business argument if you're just thinking about that is for facebook to be left alone, but as someone who likes liberty and dislike those with too much power, I'm not sure that the best argument from a societal point of view. Industrial-era regulation isn't adapted to digital world. I think social graph portability should be a minimum so that people can at least own the IP of their "real world social networks" and use them on whichever service they want to use, rather than be trapped to the one that got critical mass first in this winner-takes-all networked world. That'd at least create the possibility of an escape valve if things go really bad, and it would keep FB on its toes a bit. I'm sure people like you and Thompson would do a great job. Why not call for the break-up of others too though. Payments is a form of social network if messaging is. After all, it's all just bits of data moving between people. And that data set gives as much insight as Facebook's. So you and Thompson are both calling for Apple to either get rid of iMessage or Apple Pay, right? I mean, one of the two has to go under your infinitely wise ruling. Same with Google with their payments efforts and YouTube. Or does YouTube not qualify, but Instagram does? We're just all waiting for experts like you and Thompson to draw the lines fairly here so that us plebians can know what we need to do next. Silicon Valley will thank you guys though, because now VCs would only be able to invest in a very limited amount of companies. Of course, you guys know that a large amount of startups get acquired instead of ever going public. We're talking 100's of companies each year in the million dollar to a few hundred million dollar range. Only problem is, these companies are often all of a kind. Like social media startups, or payments startups, and so on. Only very few of those companies would now exist because of folks like you and it would send a chill through the tech industry that would knock it back to the dark days after the Dotcom crash. That's fine though, because you all know exactly what you're doing. Obviously it would be sad that Shenzen, London, and other cities would then swoop in and hire all those engineers that otherwise would've been working in America because of all the new restrictions on purchasing social media, messaging, payments, and other companies, but you'd be doing us such a great service that it would be a price we'll gladly pay. I think the best part is that after dampening the entire culture and investment levels across Silicon Valley, you'd also be disadvantaging American companies against their Chinese counterparts who'd have no such restrictions - because clearly at this early stage of the global social media industry, that'd be completely fucking stupid. So, after the US big five had one shot each at a social messaging app, and a payments app, and most of them flopped, then Alibaba and Tencent would have their pick of all of the rest worldwide and they could have as many bites of the cherry as they'd like. It's great you two understand so well how venture bets and actual acquisition strategies of big companies play out on a daily basis in the real world. So yeah, you're definitely right. We should just kneecap the best and biggest US companies in the 2nd inning of the global social media landgrab so your notions of how the world should work can be catered too. Fuck all the hardworking people who take many bets on the wrong things until they finally get it right, or who want to work in technology, because they'd simply be collateral damage of your enlightened policies and what could be more honorable than that. Your laws will be the best no doubt. Regulations that will make us win again. Bigly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 So many strawmen and so much projection, we're not even talking about the same thing... If we ever meet, let's discuss this over a beer or whisky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ajc Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 So many strawmen and so much projection, we're not even talking about the same thing... If we ever meet, let's discuss this over a beer or whisky. Whatever you say, Dr. Freud. Give my seat to a homeless person. They need the sustenance, and you sure as shit need the reality check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now