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: jlallen who wrote (766448)	11/19/2007 3:31:02 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Well, old T. Boone said "any claim", as I recall. So if Kerry can stand up there and disprove any claim made by the swiftboaters.....he wins. It wasn't all claims, and it didn't say somebody had to provide specific information from any source. Read old T. Boone's original challenge.....as a lawyer I am sure you can see the danger of issuing a challenge that uses words like: "any", with NO condition attached. This is the quote from old T. Boone's letter...note the NEW pre-condition to provide what he, T. Boone wasnts to see before he makes good. That was not there in his challenge... When you have done so, if you can then prove anything in the ads was materially untrue, I will gladly award $1 million. Old T. Boone better be careful about how he states his challenge, as there were NO conditons orginally. Oh, and Jlallen, I will give you one million dollars if you can prove that George Bush actually served in the National Guard at all. P.S.......but I won't pay until you provide me all the Bush personal correspondence from that time period, his evaluation reports, his medical records, any letters from his mama, etc. Oh, didn't I forget to mention the condition?

To: jlallen who wrote (766448)	11/19/2007 6:38:46 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: I don't see any "renege" He went back on the terms of his public challenge... then made up new pre-conditions that were never part of the original challenge. That's a renege to me. :-) Should be interesting to see where this goes now. I suggest THESE TWO POSSIBLE OPTIONS: 1) Stick to the terms of his ORIGINAL public challenge (in which T. Boone gets to decide all by himself whether the evidence that is submitted meets his own personal definition for 'sufficient proof' --- but must hear the evidence in public.) Or, 2) Toss all of that and go with the NEW, REVISED TERMS with the NUMEROUS PRECONDITIONS that he is now demanding --- but then give up the ability to be the sole arbiter of the question "has the challenge been won?", and turn it over to some neutral judge or arbiter that is mutually agreed to by both parties. Wanna bet that ole T. Boone continues to hide behind his press flacks, continues to skedaddle away from his public pledge... and NEVER does EITHER of the two possibilities listed above? That's how I'm betting....