"the fact that there's a settlement at work - and moving slowly, at that - bears the greatest proof ("proof") that the situation is not nearly so cut-and-dried as many of you are convinced that it is."
proves little or nothing, IMO. Investigations and negotiations involving billions of dollars, complex issues, potential major precedents, and multiple participants representing corporate and public interests may, on occasion, drag on a bit.
Also, I can't take responsibility for each and every set of whatever convictions "many of [us]" may or may not have come to hold. That being said, certain issues do seem rather "cut-and-dried" - in particular that some at least unseemly and potentially illegal practices on the part of major Wall St. firms have been exposed.
"And yet... what crime is committed in expressing a different personal opinion than that expressed in the context of discharging duties on behalf of ones' company of employ? "
Your fixation, not mine - nor, as far as I can tell, the main interest of most participants in this discussion, or, for that matter, of the NYAG or any would-be regulators.
"my outlook hasn't been substantially changed"
Well - then the surprise I registered in the post inquiring as to what might have impressed you in the WSJ article was justified. What would therefore be unjustified would have been a condescending and presumptuous response to my query, but, then again, I guess you never know what's going to get one of those pathetic "message board posters" going. |
