Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (226114)	2/8/2002 8:23:13 AM
From: George Coyne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

>>Therefore, an administrative waiver to any SINGLE company could not possibly be as serious an issue as a systemic conflict of interest in the entire accounting industry... upon whose numbers all investors depend. << It also could not possibly be as serious as a world-wide nuclear conflagration, but .. so what? It was pretty serious for ENRON.

To: Zoltan! who wrote (226114)	2/8/2002 11:12:34 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

LOL! Troglitidus emergus. Dear Zoltie, my point was: "Therefore, an administrative waiver limited to any SINGLE company could not possibly be as serious an issue as a systemic conflict of interest in the entire accounting industry... upon whose numbers all investors depend." You have studiously ignored my point, made no counter arguments that address the point, posted no reasoning or facts to dispute my conclusions... merely labeled my reasoning, and I quote: "nonsense. What screwy non-logic... obtuse non-thinking... being used by charlatans... to attack the system" I simply asked: Were accounting problems at Enron, Kmart, Global Crossings, Tyco, Imclone (and whatever other 'shoes' may drop next) greater in sum, and greater in their effects upon our entire market, than the problems resulting from a single administrative waiver for a single company (Enron)? To extend the point a little further: even if the SEC's ICA waiver were the root of all that is currently bad in this situation - as you seem to be arguing in your charteristicly muddled but charming way - even if, shouldn't honest accounting have raised the red flags in this area and warned investors and the regulatory authorities? So, if the accounting watchdogs were up to snuff, how could legal tax shelters have ever caused this brouhaha and collapse... if the investors and authorities were aware all along of the off balance sheet debts? Doesn't it follow that the stock would have never run up so far to begin with if the investing public was aware that the company was producing massive losses... not profits. My single point is that transparency and honest accounting is the most important prerequisite to a well functioning free market, more important than any single governmental preference granted to any single company. Feel free to disagree with any of my reasoning, it's a 'mostly free world' reasonable people are free to disagree, but if you simply resort again to stamping your feet and hurling invective and never ever listening to those you are talking to.... well then, I shall simply have to conclude that you are indeed a bonafide member in good standing of the honorable society of Flat Earth believers, subchapter Trogliditus, and treat you accordingly. ... As someone whose 'views' are emotional in origin, not considered or reasoned, and therefore unworthy of notice by adults.