Menu

Home › Forums › Housing › Question for the bulls

Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 366 total)
1 2 3 … 21 22 23 24 25
  • Author
    Posts
  • October 8, 2009 at 11:26 AM #466542
    davelj
    Participant

    [quote=Rt.66][quote=davelj][quote=Rt.66]

    The statement uses the words MANY of and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. Not one or two or a hundred, out of the gazzilian NODs/ NOTs/REOs. SO I am not debating what the statement does NOT SAY (one or two) I am debating what it does say……. MANY and SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE. What a concept.
    [/quote]

    Where is Bill Clinton when we really need his semantic distinctions?[/quote]

    No shit huh?

    It was as painful to write as it must be to read but its really hard to keep some people on point.

    Do you have an opinion on statement #1 above? That is after all the thread topic.[/quote]

    As with most things, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle of your two positions. I’m not a real estate specuvestor, so getting in the middle of these discussions that rely heavily on semantic interpretations doesn’t really interest me. Something about, “It is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong,” comes to mind.

    That you feel some need to “keep some people on point” is unfortunate. Anyone who’s been here a while has given up on that quixotic notion a while back.

    October 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM #465728
    Rt.66
    Participant

    Thanks for jumping in davelj.

    Too bad you don’t consider yourself qualified to give an opinion on the actual thread. Does not take much RE knowledge to take the debated statement to task though.

    Often your statement of the truth lying in the middle would be wise.

    In this case I submit that the difference between the numbers claimed and the numbers likely, do not lie anywhere near the middle. Sometimes the truth is in the middle sometimes a position is wildly wrong. It happens.

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.

    October 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM #465918
    Rt.66
    Participant

    Thanks for jumping in davelj.

    Too bad you don’t consider yourself qualified to give an opinion on the actual thread. Does not take much RE knowledge to take the debated statement to task though.

    Often your statement of the truth lying in the middle would be wise.

    In this case I submit that the difference between the numbers claimed and the numbers likely, do not lie anywhere near the middle. Sometimes the truth is in the middle sometimes a position is wildly wrong. It happens.

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.

    October 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM #466275
    Rt.66
    Participant

    Thanks for jumping in davelj.

    Too bad you don’t consider yourself qualified to give an opinion on the actual thread. Does not take much RE knowledge to take the debated statement to task though.

    Often your statement of the truth lying in the middle would be wise.

    In this case I submit that the difference between the numbers claimed and the numbers likely, do not lie anywhere near the middle. Sometimes the truth is in the middle sometimes a position is wildly wrong. It happens.

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.

    October 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM #466347
    Rt.66
    Participant

    Thanks for jumping in davelj.

    Too bad you don’t consider yourself qualified to give an opinion on the actual thread. Does not take much RE knowledge to take the debated statement to task though.

    Often your statement of the truth lying in the middle would be wise.

    In this case I submit that the difference between the numbers claimed and the numbers likely, do not lie anywhere near the middle. Sometimes the truth is in the middle sometimes a position is wildly wrong. It happens.

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.

    October 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM #466557
    Rt.66
    Participant

    Thanks for jumping in davelj.

    Too bad you don’t consider yourself qualified to give an opinion on the actual thread. Does not take much RE knowledge to take the debated statement to task though.

    Often your statement of the truth lying in the middle would be wise.

    In this case I submit that the difference between the numbers claimed and the numbers likely, do not lie anywhere near the middle. Sometimes the truth is in the middle sometimes a position is wildly wrong. It happens.

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.

    October 8, 2009 at 12:04 PM #465748
    davelj
    Participant

    [quote=Rt.66]

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.[/quote]

    My pleasure.

    October 8, 2009 at 12:04 PM #465938
    davelj
    Participant

    [quote=Rt.66]

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.[/quote]

    My pleasure.

    October 8, 2009 at 12:04 PM #466295
    davelj
    Participant

    [quote=Rt.66]

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.[/quote]

    My pleasure.

    October 8, 2009 at 12:04 PM #466366
    davelj
    Participant

    [quote=Rt.66]

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.[/quote]

    My pleasure.

    October 8, 2009 at 12:04 PM #466577
    davelj
    Participant

    [quote=Rt.66]

    But thanks for pointing out that I should not expect a reasonable debate foundation.[/quote]

    My pleasure.

    October 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM #465876
    (former)FormerSanDiegan
    Participant

    It all boils down to this …

    Precisely how many is many ?

    The dictionary says that it is a large indefinite number. Therefore, by definition we cannot define the exactly number that must be exceeded to reach “many.”

    Therefore, one would have to conclude that the statement sdr made using the term “many” could never unambiguously be proven true.

    Also, I don’t think many people care.
    But I can’t prove it.

    October 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM #466064
    (former)FormerSanDiegan
    Participant

    It all boils down to this …

    Precisely how many is many ?

    The dictionary says that it is a large indefinite number. Therefore, by definition we cannot define the exactly number that must be exceeded to reach “many.”

    Therefore, one would have to conclude that the statement sdr made using the term “many” could never unambiguously be proven true.

    Also, I don’t think many people care.
    But I can’t prove it.

    October 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM #466421
    (former)FormerSanDiegan
    Participant

    It all boils down to this …

    Precisely how many is many ?

    The dictionary says that it is a large indefinite number. Therefore, by definition we cannot define the exactly number that must be exceeded to reach “many.”

    Therefore, one would have to conclude that the statement sdr made using the term “many” could never unambiguously be proven true.

    Also, I don’t think many people care.
    But I can’t prove it.

    October 8, 2009 at 2:23 PM #466495
    (former)FormerSanDiegan
    Participant

    It all boils down to this …

    Precisely how many is many ?

    The dictionary says that it is a large indefinite number. Therefore, by definition we cannot define the exactly number that must be exceeded to reach “many.”

    Therefore, one would have to conclude that the statement sdr made using the term “many” could never unambiguously be proven true.

    Also, I don’t think many people care.
    But I can’t prove it.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 316 through 330 (of 366 total)
1 2 3 … 21 22 23 24 25
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.