[hungry]

Originally Posted by wechoose

Should it? I simply noted that the poster credited Gamarra as being the president of Guatemala when he is not.

As to "the question", I see no effect -- not even neutral. My rule of thumb, however, is that those who expect to win, press forward; those who expect to lose, delay.

Wechoose
Then what you are saying is that JR is going to loose in the lawsuite?
What is it that you know that the rest of us don't?
Paul

[wechoose]

Originally Posted by hungry

Wechoose
Then what you are saying is that JR is going to loose in the lawsuite?
What is it that you know that the rest of us don't?
Paul

Where did I say anything like that? My rule of thumb was about general expectations not my views on the merits of the lawsuits.

However, I do believe the only suit in any doubt is the double with Greenbelt. That's such a mess even the judges will probably go to jail.

Just kidding.

[ParsonMac]

Originally Posted by hungry

Then what you are saying is that JR is going to loose in the lawsuite? What is it that you know that the rest of us don't?
Paul

On the one hand Hungry, wechoose was pointing out a general principle. If you're confident of winning, you don't delay, you press on with rapid speed. Losers want to postpone losing (for obvious reasons).

So Russ was pointing to a hard truth, but like the other hard truth he mentioned, that the Guatemalan Parliament President was 'on the payroll', it 'spins' the conversation negatively and casts a negative pall over the dialogue.

It is objectively possible that JR is simply TOO busy right now with pending foreign negotiations and keeping his enterprise afloat to go to court. It's also objectively possible that having Mr. Julio on board is a plus and not a negative. The thing is... we don't really know.

So on the one hand, he's absolutely correct, that's why half the posters love his honesty. Also, the bare, naked truth is hard to take issue with. On the other hand, the majority of his truths spin more toward the negative than the positive (even when there are other possibilities) which is why the other half hate his posts and question his motives.

Then there's that third half of posters that's never quite sure...

Wechoose is a polarizing figure to be sure!

People trust me more, but learn a lot less (stock/investment-wise). Many trust Russ less, but learn a lot more from him.

(our good looks and intelligence notwithstanding)

[hungry]

Originally Posted by wechoose

Where did I say anything like that? My rule of thumb was about general expectations not my views on the merits of the lawsuits.

However, I do believe the only suit in any doubt is the double with Greenbelt. That's such a mess even the judges will probably go to jail.

Just kidding.

Oh! I think I understand. A rule of thumb is a way of leaving a hole to back out of when you want to say some thing derogatory and not be held acountable. Kinda like a rodent always leaves him self a rear exit out of his hole. LOL
Just kidding.
Paul

[hungry]

Originally Posted by ParsonMac

On the one hand Hungry, wechoose was pointing out a general principle. If you're confident of winning, you don't delay, you press on with rapid speed. Losers want to postpone losing (for obvious reasons).

So Russ was pointing to a hard truth, but like the other hard truth he mentioned, that the Guatemalan Parliament President was 'on the payroll', it 'spins' the conversation negatively and casts a negative pall over the dialogue.

It is objectively possible that JR is simply TOO busy right now with pending foreign negotiations and keeping his enterprise afloat to go to court. It's also objectively possible that having Mr. Julio on board is a plus and not a negative. The thing is... we don't really know.

So on the one hand, he's absolutely correct, that's why half the posters love his honesty. Also, the bare, naked truth is hard to take issue with. On the other hand, the majority of his truths spin more toward the negative than the positive (even when there are other possibilities) which is why the other half hate his posts and question his motives.

Then there's that third half of posters that's never quite sure...

Wechoose is a polarizing figure to be sure!

People trust me more, but learn a lot less (stock/investment-wise). Many trust Russ less, but learn a lot more from him.

(our good looks and intelligence notwithstanding)

Parson,
I R doin jest fine.
Had some time on my hands and thought I would harass Wechoose, just to keep the board werkin. Nothing personal I just wanted to stir the pot a little.So how are things in your world?
Paul

[ParsonMac]

A thousand apologies Mr. Choose! When I said "people trust me more" I didn't mean folks in general, just your detractors!

Your supporters of course, learn more AND trust you more than myself.

"A man's friends will always recommend him. His enemies never will."

[ParsonMac]

Originally Posted by hungry

Had some time on my hands and thought I would harass Wechoose, just to keep the board werkin. Nothing personal I just wanted to stir the pot a little. So how are things in your world?

Well, if you gotta' harass someone, may as well harass the top dog!

As far as my world is concerned... it's too soon to tell. I'll know how things are coming together in another 4, mebbe' 5 years. Ask me again then.

The missus just got back from 12 days in China. Took a coupla' hundred lovely pitchers, skyscrapers goin' up everywhere, construction cranes every block, barges comin' up the river look like a freeway in southern California during rush hour... now I know where all our money's going to.

Not a SCRAP, not even a MOLECULE of a blue patch in the sky anywhere. All grey all day.

Looks like they could use a little of that green energy stuff, or some of our clean air technology at least!

How 'bout you? Any mud drags lately?

[wechoose]

Originally Posted by ParsonMac

A thousand apologies Mr. Choose! When I said "people trust me more" I didn't mean folks in general, just your detractors!

Your supporters of course, learn more AND trust you more than myself.

"A man's friends will always recommend him. His enemies never will."

Not a problem. I think the trust issue is interesting. I know that most everyone trusts my information because it has never been wrong. I believe a bunch trust my opinions because I try to support them logically. I'm sure even the most trusting have doubts about my motives in what I pass along and why.

A short while ago, Ron exhorted shareholders to defend their company. I prefer to exhort shareholders to defend their investment and try to provide what tools I can to do just that.

[hungry]

Parson: Took the old mudder out last week end to a local race .Second fastest time on Sat. in the sand drags and on Sunday I had fast time of the day. Lots of fun. Other than that just setting on the nest waiting for our eggs to hatch out so I can build a bigger faster mudder.
Paul

[ParsonMac]

Originally Posted by wechoose

I know that most everyone trusts my information because it has never been wrong...

I knew you were good, but I didn't know you were THAT good... WOW !

NEVER wrong?!?

Wish I could say that. I was wrong about something only... well... lessee'.. it was... hmmm, let me think... OH YEAH...

Two minutes ago!

Now see, here's what I'm talking about Russ. I gave Hungry Exhibit A & B yesterday of how your facts (often true no doubt) are usually presented in some way to spin things negative.

Here's exhibit "C", from I-Hub just yesterday...

"Funny, that. One of the raps against Palacen was that its members got diplomatic immunity from criminal prosecution. Add to that all the corruption charges and you have a fine group to do business with.

The finest money can buy.

New leadership is reported to have addressed much of that although the votes are still out.

Now, Parlacen probably has taken it's corruption lumps. But the period you refer to was largely, if not entirely, before Mr. Julio became President of said organization. So he was "tarred negative" by your rather broad brush. Perhaps unfairly so.

Plus, you admit that the new leadership (which INCLUDES Mr. Julio) is reported to have addressed MUCH of that (your own words).

So, yet once again, two things that could be viewed in a positive light you have spun negative!

I admit (along with other fair-minded objectives) that you may have a point, but the jury is still out on your view as well!

Why DO most of your posts that have positive possibilities spin things toward the negative?

Truly enquiring minds want to know!

regards,