| A compilation of this board's financial/economic posts From 41316 to 41329 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post 41316 by maldinero Reply |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Culmus: Thankyou, I solidly agree with your view. –eom
|
Post
41317
by
kduff
OT: ocu, Here in NH, Lieberman and a few others ha
|
Post
41318
by
Decomposed
OT: Table ON TOPIC SUMMARY Aug 31, 2002
|
Post
41319
by
Decomposed
ot: Hot air
|
Post
41320
by
oldCADuser
OT: I've been to NH...
|
Post
41321
by
oldCADuser
OT: While on my recent trip to China I encountered
|
|
Post 41322 by maniati Reply
|
maldinero: What about me? Do you agree with what I have said, or disagree? And why?
|
Post
41323
by
kduff
OT: We have those too, as a matter of a fact, thos
|
|
Post 41324 by maniati Reply
|
independentvoice: I think that, before you start attacking my integrity, you ought to learn how to read. You said to Culmus, "it seems those who argue against you are busy engaged in lawyer-like recitation of arguments that bolster a point of view supporting their own values. i guess that's true of you too."
|
Well, in case you hadn't figured this out yet, that's pretty much what everyone does. Everyone has a point of view that they defend. But, you try to make it sound like some bad thing, don't you? But without saying so directly. So, you throw in a phrase like "lawyer-like recitation," because we know everyone dislikes lawyers. So, you figure that will make me look bad. So, in reality, your argument is that people should agree with you because you dislike lawyers. I am a lot more straightforward than you. I will tell you straight out: you can't read, and you're a coward. You're a coward, because you resort to innuendo, rather than saying what you really think. And we know you can't read, because of your comment: "but lost in the debate here is the public policy purpose of financial statements in the first place, no?" No, that's not lost at all. That's been my whole point from the beginning. That's what the discussion about "normative vs. positive" was all about. I have said a trillion times that, regardless of what people think about options, my concern is simply that the rules of accounting reflect the economic reality. That's been my whole point, and my only point. For you to not see that, and then turn around and say that the discussion has overlooked that issue, only proves that you don't pay attention. So, pay attention. Maybe you'll learn something.
Post
41325
by
maniati
OT: Culmus: I'll have to get back to you, because
|
|
Post 41326 by Culmus Reply
|
maniati,
|
I realized you saying that the company is distinct from the shareholder, I said that myself before (as that is an important distinction in this case). That part of my post was directed towards pmcw as he felt obliged to go over "corporate crap 101" in answer to my earlier post. That I felt quite insulted by, as if I had no clue. No offense intended towards you, I thought it was clear I tried to touch on some points of pmcw's reply in the beginning of my post and respond to your post afterwards.
Post
41327
by
pdowd
OT: Decomposed !!!!
|
|
Post 41328 by colettevk Reply
|
That's not real insider buying, that's window dressing.
|
Post
41329
by
ferociousD
OT:
|
| |||||