Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Including the links and quoting what was said doesn't imply credibility. I think that is quite a stretch to say I am trying to lend WSJ credibility to a law firm being investigated for fraud.
The article states the links belong to a WSJ owned site. And indeed it is. The article states it is a PR. I never claimed otherwise and in fact, included the links.
This sounds like a first grade argument. You really think I implied some WSJ journal endorsement? Simply, a more palatable site. The WSJ could have discussed the so-called fraud claims? No such claims were made. I cannot believe any adult would buy that.
My whole ruse was held together by me praying no one would click on the links I provided? What a plan.
Non responsive.
Whatever your claims, the ONLY reason to introduce the Wall Street Journal into this thread was to attach the credibility of the Wall Street Journal to the press release. "Simply, a more palatable site"?????? Palatable because of the credibility of the Wall Street Journal.
And I never said anything about a "whole ruse", but the fact that you use those words to describe your efforts on this thread is quite telling.
Whatever your claims, the ONLY reason to introduce the Wall Street Journal into this thread was to attach the credibility of the Wall Street Journal to the press release. "Simply, a more palatable site"?????? Palatable because of the credibility of the Wall Street Journal.
And I never said anything about a "whole ruse", but the fact that you use those words to describe your efforts on this thread is quite telling.
There is no evidence supporting your claims. In fact, to the contrary. Palatable was a guess and yes based on "mainstream" views. 2 others also thought the same. The only idea there was to at least read what was stated.
I said links to wsj. Included them. Which is true and in the article. Yeah pretty telling. You are stating deception on my part, so ruse is certainly applicable.
Ya know, fine if you want to think like that, but you might want to actually think about what you are saying and the logic of it.
There is no evidence supporting your claims. In fact, to the contrary. Palatable was a guess and yes based on "mainstream" views. 2 others also thought the same.
I said links to wsj. Included them. Which is true and in the article. Yeah pretty telling. You are stating deception on my part, so ruse is certainly applicable.
Ya know, fine if you want to think like that, but you might want to actually think about what you are saying and the logic of it.
I didn't state "deception" on your part. I said you were trying to attach the credibility of the Wall Street Journal to a press release issued by a lawfirm that has a questionable history. You were doing it pretty openly, actually, and I was pretty vehement in pointing that out.
My logic is impeccable.
You start a thread based on a press release issued by a lawfirm that has a questionable history involving the exact thing the press release is about.
Because the press release was issued to several credible sources in the business world, you tried to attach the credibility of those publications to the press release.
When it's pointed out that the press release is from a non-credible source, and when the lawfirm's problems are brought up, and when the lack of a link between the credible news sources and the press release are shown, you backpedal, saying that you have "no skin" in this race.
Then, you, with no logic at all, continue to defend the credibility of the press release.
I didn't state "deception" on your part. I said you were trying to attach the credibility of the Wall Street Journal to a press release issued by a lawfirm that has a questionable history. You were doing it pretty openly, actually, and I was pretty vehement in pointing that out.
My logic is impeccable.
You start a thread based on a press release issued by a lawfirm that has a questionable history involving the exact thing the press release is about.
Because the press release was issued to several credible sources in the business world, you tried to attach the credibility of those publications to the press release.
When it's pointed out that the press release is from a non-credible source, and when the lawfirm's problems are brought up, and when the lack of a link between the credible news sources and the press release are shown, you backpedal, saying that you have "no skin" in this race.
Then, you, with no logic at all, continue to defend the credibility of the press release.
First off, I made no claims. Quite the contrary. Certainly knew nothing about the firm or the alleged case. You claim I tried to attach credibility, I do not believe this is the case.
Including information, that states what is being discussed and links, is pretty transparent. I think it is a huge stretch to claim intent of credibility. Credibility of what?
I am not back-pedaling. I am stating I have no skin in the game because HD is implying I am on the payroll. NEVER claimed I did have skin so I am clarifying. I have not defended the source or the alleged lawsuit either. Where did I do this?
Nobody said it was anything other than a PR. As to clerk's entering, that isn't really the issue. Only an index number was given. I have seen delays of months and even inaccuracies in online vs actual hearings.
This link the HD provided, has this guy looking into whether this is actually a filed case. updated 5/4/2012. He makes a very good mention of the offshore accts, which is a big part of this.
If HD went through all the trouble to signup for what looks to be multiple user accts for NY supreme court, for this case, kudos to him.
It's NOT a news item, it's a Press Release from a Law Firm...what about that do you NOT comprehend? It's NOT an article in the WSJ, it was on Market watch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.