Table On-Topic Summary - 01-Sep-2002
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

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: