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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (148470)	7/17/2002 2:56:52 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578652

Furthermore, there is liability whether there is debt or not. Frankly, it would appear I have forgotten more real estate deals Frankly, you're right -- you have forgotten more than you know. I think you're confusing "liability exposure" with "liability". Two different things. "Liabilities" are debts. If you owe me $100,000 for the purchase of real estate, the $100,000 is a "liability" to you. Again, I think you're a little out of your area of expertise here. Because we disagree on the definition of liability, I am out of my "area of expertise"? I don't thiiinnk sooooooo. You are wrong in your interpretation, and you really need to accept it instead of trying to put the fault on me. Look, I once worked for one of the largest syndicators in the country. McAuliffe's deal would have been chump change for them. As presented in the Nat. Review article, there does not appear to be anything irregular re this deal. However, there may be facts that were omitted. If so and when those facts come to the surface, let me know. Then we can talk about whether McAuliffe is a crook or not. Otherwise, its just supposition and idle speculation.