Monday, March 15, 2010
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Introducing the Facebook Family Plan
AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon all have family talk plans. How about if social networking sites followed suit? The best example of this would be the Facebook Family Plan where you can create one profile and list yourself, your spouse, the kids and any pets worth mentioning.
You've probably already seen people "jury-rigging" Facebook for this already. I'm friends with at least half-a-dozen people who combine their Facebook profiles with their spouse. It's easy to do. Say your name is George Jetson and your wife's name is Judy. Each of you have a Facebook profile, but you both don't spend enough time on the site to make it worth your while, but you like occasionally catching up with old friends and seeing what they're up to. Just change your first name from George to "GeorgeJudy" or "GeorgeandJudy", delete Judy's profile and there you go.
The downside of this is it may be a violation of the current TOS (I'm not sure, and don't have the time to wade through it) Chime in if you know that's not the case. Another negative is it may make you and your spouse less searchable on Facebook. What other things can you think of that would be negative?
It really wouldn't be hard for Facebook to create some special features for dual accounts. Both names could be listed and fully searched. When the profile is pulled up it would show the combined version with his and her editable features.
So there it is. My super duper schmuper Facebook idea for them to make it easier for people who want to combine profiles.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Is Gary Vanynerchuk coming to Chattanooga?
Although I'm not much of a betting man when it comes to the bright lights and free drinks of Vegas (Vegas baby!), I do take risks in business. The few times I've been to Las Vegas I typically employ the following strategy: place all the money I'm willing to bet in my left pocket, and put all my winnings in the right pocket. When the left pocket is empty I'm outa there on to the buffet to count my winnings!
What does this have to do with Gary Vaynerchuk, host of Wine Library TV, social media rock star and author of the top seller "Crush It" now available on Amazon and retailers nationwide? I'm getting to that so just hold on. Needless to say, Jon Moss is not one to bet on the ponies or even buy lottery tickets for that matter! My thought is you have a better chance of coming up with a good idea, working hard at it and scoring big time than winning the lottery. Heard once that most "instant millionaires" are broke and/or bankrupt with a few years anyway.
Business is different though. All bets are off and it's go the gold or get eaten alive. I've been following the leaders of the social media evolution via Twitter - people like Chris Brogan, John Jantsch, and of course Gary Vanyerchuk. They provide inspiration, strategic thinking and practical tools for entrepreneurs, dreamers, doers and most everyone else tuning into their messages. I glean much from them.
Having spent half my life in Miami, I'm a Dolphins fan. Each year they break my heart and almost every week the Dolphins make me cry. So it's Monday night and the Dolphins are playing the Jets. It's bath night at the Moss House and I'm watching over my four-year old daughter as she splashes away. Checking my Twitter stream I see @garyvee tweet his excitement for the soon to start Jets game.
Hmmmm...Gary's a huge Jets fan. I'm a huge Dolphins fan. There's been a definite rivalry between the two teams. My memories of Jets-Dolphins games usually include them beating the Fins in the last minutes of the game or sticking it so bad to us that it hurt real bad. What hurt the most was going to Joe Robbie Stadium in Miami and hearing the Jets fans drown at the Dolfans at times. That was the worst - losing home field advantage in one's hometown.
Gary's been promoting his new book, Crush It, through all his media channels and I took note on his website where he illustrated how a person could "buy" some time with him by pre-purchasing a large number of books. How cool would it be to make a bet with him on the outcome of the football game?
Without thinking to much, I tweeted the following:
considering betting @garyvee the Dolphins beat the Jets. Jets win - I buy 100 books. Fins win - he hangs in #CHA w/me & friends for a day
Twenty seconds later he responds:
@jonfmoss done
As my daughter splashes water on the bathroom floor and all over my shirt the gravity of what I've done is starting to weigh in. Holy sh#$%t!!! Did I just say that? Did he just agree?????? Wait a second! We're talking Dolphins and Jets - how much do those books cost again?!!!!??????
I must have said something because at that momment my wife came down the hall asking "what's going on?" "Nothing Dear," I stammered while pondering my recent impulsive action.
My mind started racing: "What's the line? Are the Dolpins favored? How much am I on the hook for if/when they lose? Oh crap - we're playing the Jets. They always beat us at home. I'm dead meat." In a distant corner of my mind I hear Hootie and the Blowfish playing that all to familar tune. I'm such a baby cuz the Dolphins make me cry. Would I be crying at the end of the night?
After telling my wife, who by the way was very supportive, yet not sure if this was such a wise thing to do especially because of the potential out-of-pocket. She kept saying, "I trust you." Thanks honey - you have no idea how much that meant to me.
The game starts and I'm pacing the floor. I call my good friend from college for moral support. He and I have suffered over the years watching the Dolphins since we were freshman at FIU back in 1987. He, and he alone, will understand the gravity of the situation. I get his voicemail and leave a message asking him what the odds are for tonight's game. He calls back and says "it's funny you called. I'm at a casino and just placed a bet on the Dolphins." Did I mention Paul lives in Las Vegas?
Our conversation goes something like this:
Paul: You did what?
Me: I bet Gary Vaynerchuk on Twitter that the Dolphins would beat the Jets. If they don't I have to buy 100 of his books
Paul: Dude, it's the Dolphins and Jets! Can you retract?
Me: I dunno. It's Twitter dude
Paul: Oh man, this is big. This game has new meaning. I'll be rooting even harder for them tonight
Me: Are they favored?
Paul: Well, Goldberg picked the Jets
Me: That's great. Who did you pick?
Paul: I bet $10 on the Fins. But I can place a bet on the Jets for you - just in case you have to cover some losses
Me: (burying face in hands) I'll get back with you
Okay, let's watch the game. Only this time I'm watching a little bit differently than normal. Dolphins start off playing good, and the score at the end of the 1st quarter was 10-7 Miami. By the end of the 2nd quarter the score isn't so good. Jets 13, Dolphins 10.
Halftime - I pace even more. The phone rings. It's Paul. "Dude, are you good for 10 books if this thing doesn't go my way", I ask of him. "Yeah, put me down for 10", he says.
During all this I had also called another friend. Whereas Paul was good for the football support, Jimmy was the one who'd understand why I made such a bet since he follows @garyvee on Twitter too.
"Dude, that is awesome", exclaims Jimmy. Yeah, it's awesome - can I put you down for 10 books? Jimmy agrees. His wife emails my wife: "we're praying the Dolphins win tonight." The sound of all this makes my wife feel a little better, and more importantly smile a bit.
Living in Tennessee, I don't get to see Miami on TV that much anymore. Over the past couple of years I've theorized that when I watch the game they lose. If I don't watch they sometimes lose, but sometimes win. They almost never win when I watch. I submit the last two games as evidence. Maybe I should turn the game off and not watch. At this point I'd do anything to increase my odds.
Defense rules the 3rd quarter as neither team scores. But Miami is mounting an impressive drive at the end and punches it in at the start of the 4th quarter. I've resigned myself to laying on the bed and staring at the ceiling while listening to the game.
The lead keeps changing, and we keep getting called for penalties. I've seen this before. We go toe to toe with the Jets and end up losing in the last minute because of a failed drive or a stupid penalty or even worse a fumble. Heck, I've watched the Dolphins blow a 20 point lead in the 4th quarter to the Jets. This ain't over till it's over!
But wait, could it really be happening? Are the Dolphins on the verge of a victory? Visions of being buried in books are replaced by thoughts of picking up Gary at the airport, showing him a bit of Chattanooga and spending time with him talking about my business and how everything he and others are saying can and should be applied in my life/business/industry.
And then it's over. The final score reads Miami 31, Jets 27. There are no more seconds on the clock. The phone rings. It's Paul. He just made $34 from his $10 bet. We both agree that I may have made a little bit more. As he put, the odds maker that he is, I made a 5:1 bet and no matter what happens the rest of the season this was the sweetest victory in a long time.
During the game I did not tweet at all. DMs were flying among friends, but I stayed silent. After the game I tweeted a smiley face whereas Gary was not happy at (with the result of the game) Check out his Twitter stream for his reactions to the game.
As for what happens next I don't know. Would I have bought 100 books if the Dolphins lost? With the help of friends I'm certain we would collectively been able to make good.
Will Gary come to Chattanooga? I don't know. What I do know is that I have not rooted for the Dolphins that hard in a long time! Sure was a different experience having some skin in the game. Reminds me of that saying: whereas the chicken makes a contribution, the pig is fully committed to breakfast
Oh, and in case you're reading this Gary. Sorry, I won't go double or nothing on November 1st. ;-)
Friday, May 8, 2009
Why I hated JJ Abrams Star Trek movie
Hate is such a powerful word. And over time it can turn into something else. However, I can't overlook that this is how I felt after first seeing the new Star Trek movie. Like all fans I was euphoric upon hearing that a new Star Trek movie was coming out, and admit the story was quite intriguing too. A Kirk & Spock - The Early Years film. What could be better since the TNG story line had come to a quasi conclusion in Nemesis. The cast of TOS were all a little to old to make a believable comeback (sorry Shatner) and besides they're missing a crew member. Any thought of a DS9, Voyager or Enterprise movie is laughable.
Let me say now that I don't consider myself a Trekkie or Trekker. There are no pointy ears hiding in the dresser drawer. In fact there are only two Star Trek related items in the house. The Star Trek Compendium which runs up to the Final Frontier and a Klingon communicator that came out of a box of Corn Pops the other day. I am Star Trek purist and fan of TOS, TNG and the movies. In college, I befriended two others who share the same level of passion for Star Trek. Whereas at times Seinfeld obsessed over Superman, we had Star Trek.
So with eyes wide open I ventured into the theater. The first part of the movie, basically an introduction of the characters we feel as if we've known most of our lives is a lot of fun. The exchanges between Kirk and McCoy early on very enjoyable as we hear many of Bones' trademark phrases uttered. Absent however was the classic "He's dead, Jim."
Uhura's character got considerable screen time which was refreshing, and long overdue considering her lack of it on the small screen. The romance thing was not very plausible, but I suppose warranted by Paramount execs who preferred not to have intimate scenes between Mr. Scott and the Enterprise's engines. Sulu and Chekov (the Russian accent was a bit over the top though) both had some character buildup as well, but let's face it - this movie could have/should have been called "Kirk & Spock - The Early Years"
Every good Star Trek film has a villain. Ricardo Montalban set the bar very high in Wrath of Khan and Eric Bana doesn't even come close. A quick hologram shot of his deceased wife is not the way to get us to invest in this character. There was no depth to this villain.
About half way into the movie I started to get worried. Spock announces to the bridge crew that their timeline has been altered so they are not the persons they were going to be. They are now all different. In other words, this ain't your daddy's Star Trek no more. I took this as JJ Abrams saying screw you Star Trek fans, I'm doing what I want in this film and don't have to adhere to the ST canon. This was confirmed soon after with the total annihilation of Planet Vulcan. As the planet was erased from existence so was the hope that this or future Trek movies would even attempt to tie in to the existing body of work. Goodbye continuity.
One of the things that captivated a number of Star Wars fans was how George Lucas planned to complete his saga by rolling out the prequels (Episodes 1, 2 and 3). Continuity was always a key factor in measuring the success of Star Wars. You can argue the quality of the product Lucas put out in the last three films released, but there was a logical timeline that can be traced from Episode 1 to the conclusion of Episode 6. The way things were wrapped up at the end of Episode 3 with the twins split up - the boy given to his Aunt and Uncle, and the girl given to the Senator and his wife. It all pretty much made sense at the end of the prequels.
This does not appear to be the case with JJ Abrams Star Trek. A friend on Twitter hinted that having the young Kirk drive a vintage 1966 Corvette over a cliff was significant in that it was the year the original Star Trek debuted. Again, was this the directors way of saying I'm ditching the Star Trek of old and doing a "reboot" of this entire thing?
From the start of the movie it was quite noticeable that the outer space sequences were shot in a stylistic manner similar to SciFi Channel's Battlestar Galactica series. It's a very physical design versus the more traditional way in which SciFi genre films have been shot over the years. This didn't really bother me, but it did produce more of a lackluster visual effect in that the exterior shots of the ships were not as long. A very good friend and Star Trek purist pointed out that in a way he missed the achieved effect of using actual models in the film production over CGI. In Star Trek II the story was enhanced by portraying two battered ships as if they were battling it out on the high seas.
Another thing, the movie started off on the wrong foot for me. Where was the instantly recognizable Star Trek thematic music? We had to wait till the very end to get any satisfaction whatsoever. I don't even recall hearing it when Kirk and McCoy were in the shuttle approaching the Enterprise for the first time. And where were the extended exterior shots of the Enterprise. Star Trek is just as much a story about a man and his ship as it is about the bonds of brotherhood shared between humans (and half-humans).
And yet another thing...at what point in the movie did you have a breakthrough moment for Kirk and Spock? My good friend also pointed out that Star Trek movies are "buddy films" like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Famous duos of the silver screen such as Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon, Billy Crystal and Gregory Hines in Running Scared, Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte in 48 Hours, Wilder & Pryor in Silver Streak all have something in common: moments where the characters go outside themselves to demonstrate their devotion to one another. Where is that moment with Kirk and Spock in the film? How do we go from Spock wanting to kill Kirk and having no qualms about marooning him on Delta Vega to Kirk welcoming him back to duty as his first officer? Mr. Abrams, you've got to show us the love.
The appearance of Leonard Nimoy was not satisfying either. What struck me as odd is that he seemed to be playing Leonard Nimoy on the screen more than the character of Spock. It was awkward and old & tired at best. If this was an attempt to quench the thirst of the die hard, it failed with me.
Not one to give up easily, as the credits started rolling I marched into the adjacent theater to watch it again...with a thought dangling on the edge of reason that this is an odd-numbered ST movie versus an even-numbered one.
The second time I had a better feel for the plot and rather than focus on how things were unfolding I instead focused on the visualization and action of the movie. This is a good sci-fi action film with a lot of references to my beloved Star Trek. But again, I felt it was separate from that body of work. As a movie, it can stand alone and anyone without much familiarity with ST can immensely enjoy it, and maybe that's another problem I have with the film. This is not so much a Star Trek film as it is a sci-fi action movie.
Hollywood of late has been drawing from the well of older movies, TV series and genres only to morph them into more modern versions. Mission Impossible, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, King Kong, The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds to name a few. I know these are remakes or a retelling of stories whereas the eleventh installment of Star Trek is a prequel meant to show us how these characters all came to be together. I submit that's not really the purpose of the film. It's more about having a blockbuster summer hit. I imagine Abrams shouting, "Damn the Trekkies - full speed ahead!" And Paramount has every right to want a movie that makes a ton of cash.
And I have every right to be disappointed by what Mr. Abrams has done with Star Trek. Did I cry? No. Is my life ruined? No. Has my Star Trek joy been robbed? No. Do you even care about what I'm saying here? Maybe not, but I felt it important to voice my opinion since everyone I've talked with seems to be gushing about this movie. My reaction has been vindicated after talking with one of my aforementioned college buddies. He agreed completely with my thoughts here. The other one is unreachable since he went boldly where no man has gone before, but I have a good feeling about what he'd have to say.
So there you have it. Star Trek - The Abrams-ized Version - is a good scifi action film. It's not, in my opinion, a great Star Trek movie. You could change the names of the characters and still have a film to watch. With Star Trek XI do we have foreseeable departure from what is, what was, and what shall always be Star Trek? I sure hope not, but it sure looks that way.
*****************
And now a little self deprecating humor...
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
Let me say now that I don't consider myself a Trekkie or Trekker. There are no pointy ears hiding in the dresser drawer. In fact there are only two Star Trek related items in the house. The Star Trek Compendium which runs up to the Final Frontier and a Klingon communicator that came out of a box of Corn Pops the other day. I am Star Trek purist and fan of TOS, TNG and the movies. In college, I befriended two others who share the same level of passion for Star Trek. Whereas at times Seinfeld obsessed over Superman, we had Star Trek.
So with eyes wide open I ventured into the theater. The first part of the movie, basically an introduction of the characters we feel as if we've known most of our lives is a lot of fun. The exchanges between Kirk and McCoy early on very enjoyable as we hear many of Bones' trademark phrases uttered. Absent however was the classic "He's dead, Jim."
Uhura's character got considerable screen time which was refreshing, and long overdue considering her lack of it on the small screen. The romance thing was not very plausible, but I suppose warranted by Paramount execs who preferred not to have intimate scenes between Mr. Scott and the Enterprise's engines. Sulu and Chekov (the Russian accent was a bit over the top though) both had some character buildup as well, but let's face it - this movie could have/should have been called "Kirk & Spock - The Early Years"
Every good Star Trek film has a villain. Ricardo Montalban set the bar very high in Wrath of Khan and Eric Bana doesn't even come close. A quick hologram shot of his deceased wife is not the way to get us to invest in this character. There was no depth to this villain.
About half way into the movie I started to get worried. Spock announces to the bridge crew that their timeline has been altered so they are not the persons they were going to be. They are now all different. In other words, this ain't your daddy's Star Trek no more. I took this as JJ Abrams saying screw you Star Trek fans, I'm doing what I want in this film and don't have to adhere to the ST canon. This was confirmed soon after with the total annihilation of Planet Vulcan. As the planet was erased from existence so was the hope that this or future Trek movies would even attempt to tie in to the existing body of work. Goodbye continuity.
One of the things that captivated a number of Star Wars fans was how George Lucas planned to complete his saga by rolling out the prequels (Episodes 1, 2 and 3). Continuity was always a key factor in measuring the success of Star Wars. You can argue the quality of the product Lucas put out in the last three films released, but there was a logical timeline that can be traced from Episode 1 to the conclusion of Episode 6. The way things were wrapped up at the end of Episode 3 with the twins split up - the boy given to his Aunt and Uncle, and the girl given to the Senator and his wife. It all pretty much made sense at the end of the prequels.
This does not appear to be the case with JJ Abrams Star Trek. A friend on Twitter hinted that having the young Kirk drive a vintage 1966 Corvette over a cliff was significant in that it was the year the original Star Trek debuted. Again, was this the directors way of saying I'm ditching the Star Trek of old and doing a "reboot" of this entire thing?
From the start of the movie it was quite noticeable that the outer space sequences were shot in a stylistic manner similar to SciFi Channel's Battlestar Galactica series. It's a very physical design versus the more traditional way in which SciFi genre films have been shot over the years. This didn't really bother me, but it did produce more of a lackluster visual effect in that the exterior shots of the ships were not as long. A very good friend and Star Trek purist pointed out that in a way he missed the achieved effect of using actual models in the film production over CGI. In Star Trek II the story was enhanced by portraying two battered ships as if they were battling it out on the high seas.
Another thing, the movie started off on the wrong foot for me. Where was the instantly recognizable Star Trek thematic music? We had to wait till the very end to get any satisfaction whatsoever. I don't even recall hearing it when Kirk and McCoy were in the shuttle approaching the Enterprise for the first time. And where were the extended exterior shots of the Enterprise. Star Trek is just as much a story about a man and his ship as it is about the bonds of brotherhood shared between humans (and half-humans).
And yet another thing...at what point in the movie did you have a breakthrough moment for Kirk and Spock? My good friend also pointed out that Star Trek movies are "buddy films" like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Famous duos of the silver screen such as Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon, Billy Crystal and Gregory Hines in Running Scared, Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte in 48 Hours, Wilder & Pryor in Silver Streak all have something in common: moments where the characters go outside themselves to demonstrate their devotion to one another. Where is that moment with Kirk and Spock in the film? How do we go from Spock wanting to kill Kirk and having no qualms about marooning him on Delta Vega to Kirk welcoming him back to duty as his first officer? Mr. Abrams, you've got to show us the love.
The appearance of Leonard Nimoy was not satisfying either. What struck me as odd is that he seemed to be playing Leonard Nimoy on the screen more than the character of Spock. It was awkward and old & tired at best. If this was an attempt to quench the thirst of the die hard, it failed with me.
Not one to give up easily, as the credits started rolling I marched into the adjacent theater to watch it again...with a thought dangling on the edge of reason that this is an odd-numbered ST movie versus an even-numbered one.
The second time I had a better feel for the plot and rather than focus on how things were unfolding I instead focused on the visualization and action of the movie. This is a good sci-fi action film with a lot of references to my beloved Star Trek. But again, I felt it was separate from that body of work. As a movie, it can stand alone and anyone without much familiarity with ST can immensely enjoy it, and maybe that's another problem I have with the film. This is not so much a Star Trek film as it is a sci-fi action movie.
Hollywood of late has been drawing from the well of older movies, TV series and genres only to morph them into more modern versions. Mission Impossible, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, King Kong, The Day the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds to name a few. I know these are remakes or a retelling of stories whereas the eleventh installment of Star Trek is a prequel meant to show us how these characters all came to be together. I submit that's not really the purpose of the film. It's more about having a blockbuster summer hit. I imagine Abrams shouting, "Damn the Trekkies - full speed ahead!" And Paramount has every right to want a movie that makes a ton of cash.
And I have every right to be disappointed by what Mr. Abrams has done with Star Trek. Did I cry? No. Is my life ruined? No. Has my Star Trek joy been robbed? No. Do you even care about what I'm saying here? Maybe not, but I felt it important to voice my opinion since everyone I've talked with seems to be gushing about this movie. My reaction has been vindicated after talking with one of my aforementioned college buddies. He agreed completely with my thoughts here. The other one is unreachable since he went boldly where no man has gone before, but I have a good feeling about what he'd have to say.
So there you have it. Star Trek - The Abrams-ized Version - is a good scifi action film. It's not, in my opinion, a great Star Trek movie. You could change the names of the characters and still have a film to watch. With Star Trek XI do we have foreseeable departure from what is, what was, and what shall always be Star Trek? I sure hope not, but it sure looks that way.
*****************
And now a little self deprecating humor...
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
Monday, February 16, 2009
Why I'm not voting till election day
Here in Chattanooga we have a mayoral election taking place on March 3rd. Early voting is already in progress and the candidates are encouraging people to vote early just as we all were during the recent Presidential election.
Call me old fashion but I prefer to wait until election day to actually go and vote. There's just something about marching to the polls, doing one's civic duty, and watching the results later that night, or the next day. Or in the case of 2000, weeks later.
It makes me feel more connected to the process to actually vote on Election Day. Oh, and give me that sticker to wear. You know, the one with an American flag that says "I voted." I was conned out of that little pleasure last November. It's our version of the purple finger over in Iraq.
I'm not trying to be coy, but sometimes it's good be in the game, so to speak, until the final round. What if a last minute story was to break in the news the eve of the election that would cause me to reconsider who I was voting for? Sorry Charlie to all you early voters if you were swayed at the last minute. What if my chosen candidate pulled out of the race after I'd already voted? Think the Elections Board would let me adjust my vote accordingly? Not a chance.
There was a funny catch-phrase circulating during the McCain vs Obama race that I heard many people jokingly reference: "Vote early, vote often" (in Chicago they probably weren't kidding though). I say make 'em sweat, save your vote till the very end and make it count.
Call me old fashion but I prefer to wait until election day to actually go and vote. There's just something about marching to the polls, doing one's civic duty, and watching the results later that night, or the next day. Or in the case of 2000, weeks later.
It makes me feel more connected to the process to actually vote on Election Day. Oh, and give me that sticker to wear. You know, the one with an American flag that says "I voted." I was conned out of that little pleasure last November. It's our version of the purple finger over in Iraq.
I'm not trying to be coy, but sometimes it's good be in the game, so to speak, until the final round. What if a last minute story was to break in the news the eve of the election that would cause me to reconsider who I was voting for? Sorry Charlie to all you early voters if you were swayed at the last minute. What if my chosen candidate pulled out of the race after I'd already voted? Think the Elections Board would let me adjust my vote accordingly? Not a chance.
There was a funny catch-phrase circulating during the McCain vs Obama race that I heard many people jokingly reference: "Vote early, vote often" (in Chicago they probably weren't kidding though). I say make 'em sweat, save your vote till the very end and make it count.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Super Bowl Party
Robin & I took a good portion of our Christmas money and sat on it till plasma tv’s went on sale. We had our eye on a Samsung 50″ 1080p, but the price wasn’t to our likening. After reading several articles on how there is no substantial noticeable difference between a 720p & 1080p for sets under 54″, I decided that a 50″ 720p plasma would work just fine.
And seeing it in the family room…it does work just fine plus we saved $500 by not going with the higher model. So days after we set it up, I got the green light to host a Super Bowl party at the house. Fun for the guys & their wives (some of which are very into the game as well-at least from what I remember last year)
And seeing it in the family room…it does work just fine plus we saved $500 by not going with the higher model. So days after we set it up, I got the green light to host a Super Bowl party at the house. Fun for the guys & their wives (some of which are very into the game as well-at least from what I remember last year)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
