This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.
Important notes on articles:
- Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
- Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
- If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.
Post being replied to
Nor do you, completely misrepresenting my view by OrangeJubilee
As I posted, it seems there was no fraud to cure. You know that and I know you just like to egg people on, but come on. The terms were set by the banks own evaluation, per their testimony I believe. A counterparty hasn’t brought a fraud tort against him claiming he got favorable terms at their detriment. Honestly the record seems to indicate that his representations had no impact.
It’s like a trader talking his book. Everyone knows to do their own evaluation. A house seller listing their house at a high price isn’t defrauding the seller, the seller makes their own determination of value and the parties meet or they don’t.
Call people out if you want, but do it for things they actually post.