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 (159149)	1/28/2003 10:45:46 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1580670

Then please explain in your superior way why the ABA makes the distinction? Obviously, it must mean something to them or they would not bother to make google.com. Why don't you tell me how many of these stories report Pickering as "second highest" rated vs. "highest". I repeat my question of months ago: When have you EVER admitted you're wrong? Go back and read the article that I posted.......it said he got the second highest rating........I had no reason to check it. But when you disagreed, I thought the journalist may be wrong and I went to the ABA site and checked out their ratings system. It turned out the author of the article was correct except he used the wrong teminology. The best rating is the one P. Owens got.......a unanimous "Well qualified" and not "Extremely Well Qualified" as the journalist had said. Pickering got a qualified "Well qualified"........I am sure you can tell the difference. And I am sure the ABA does it this way for a reason. Clearly, there was a minority of ABA members who think Pickering is simply "Qualified" and not "Well Qualified". I don't know about you but that suggests to me that Pickering got a lesser rating than Owens. Do you still disagree? If so, then please clearly explain your reasons why. ted