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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (39164)	6/5/1999 11:56:00 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

Nor a pox on me, either, please. I know exactly what you are talking about. I try very hard not to do it. I know that there are people who make it their business to obfuscate, evade, and flat out lie. There is no doubt about it. At the same time, I wonder if some of the difficulty lies in the fact that truth is as stated in Rashomon, what I see, and how I interpret it, is not what you see, nor how you interpret it, even if we are both well-intentioned. BTW, I gather from this post, and others on the same topic, that you must have a Pd.D. in Economics, and are employed in academia. The projected income stream of a young person who has yet to enter the job market must be based on a number of assumptions, and the assumptions don't seem to be the same from the defense side and the plaintiff side. I would ask my economist to assume the best, and project from that. We don't know how the future would have turned out, so it's not really dishonest, it's wishful thinking. I suppose the defense attorney asks his economist to assume the worst, which is also wishful thinking. It's the job of the other side to challenge the assumptions, isn't it? And maybe find out, in advance, I think would be the best way to do it, what the projected income stream would have been if other facts were assumed?