Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
robson
ParticipantCurious how the “democratization” of the Muslim world would translate to keeping them from engaging in these devious world domination ambitions. Do you mean Christianization? If it is a religious war you want to fight, why characterize it as a political war? Just because it is more PC? Why is it that anti-Bush sentiment is “bullying” but anti-democratic or anti-Clinton sentiment is “factual?” Your logic depends on 1 too many double standards for me.
ParticipantCurious how the “democratization” of the Muslim world would translate to keeping them from engaging in these devious world domination ambitions. Do you mean Christianization? If it is a religious war you want to fight, why characterize it as a political war? Just because it is more PC? Why is it that anti-Bush sentiment is “bullying” but anti-democratic or anti-Clinton sentiment is “factual?” Your logic depends on 1 too many double standards for me.
ParticipantCurious how the “democratization” of the Muslim world would translate to keeping them from engaging in these devious world domination ambitions. Do you mean Christianization? If it is a religious war you want to fight, why characterize it as a political war? Just because it is more PC? Why is it that anti-Bush sentiment is “bullying” but anti-democratic or anti-Clinton sentiment is “factual?” Your logic depends on 1 too many double standards for me.
ParticipantCurious how the “democratization” of the Muslim world would translate to keeping them from engaging in these devious world domination ambitions. Do you mean Christianization? If it is a religious war you want to fight, why characterize it as a political war? Just because it is more PC? Why is it that anti-Bush sentiment is “bullying” but anti-democratic or anti-Clinton sentiment is “factual?” Your logic depends on 1 too many double standards for me.
ParticipantAgreed that the CS is better to follow, I keep an eye on Dataquick median simply because that’s what the public sees in the paper.
As far as the CS fall, it depends how you choose to convert the index # to $. I do it by setting the January 1988 ratio as “normal” but this is subjective. According to that technique, we had last $100,000 as of December. I’m sure the Feb CS #’s will show a bit larger, more accurate fall.ParticipantAgreed that the CS is better to follow, I keep an eye on Dataquick median simply because that’s what the public sees in the paper.
As far as the CS fall, it depends how you choose to convert the index # to $. I do it by setting the January 1988 ratio as “normal” but this is subjective. According to that technique, we had last $100,000 as of December. I’m sure the Feb CS #’s will show a bit larger, more accurate fall.ParticipantAgreed that the CS is better to follow, I keep an eye on Dataquick median simply because that’s what the public sees in the paper.
As far as the CS fall, it depends how you choose to convert the index # to $. I do it by setting the January 1988 ratio as “normal” but this is subjective. According to that technique, we had last $100,000 as of December. I’m sure the Feb CS #’s will show a bit larger, more accurate fall.ParticipantAgreed that the CS is better to follow, I keep an eye on Dataquick median simply because that’s what the public sees in the paper.
As far as the CS fall, it depends how you choose to convert the index # to $. I do it by setting the January 1988 ratio as “normal” but this is subjective. According to that technique, we had last $100,000 as of December. I’m sure the Feb CS #’s will show a bit larger, more accurate fall.ParticipantAgreed that the CS is better to follow, I keep an eye on Dataquick median simply because that’s what the public sees in the paper.
As far as the CS fall, it depends how you choose to convert the index # to $. I do it by setting the January 1988 ratio as “normal” but this is subjective. According to that technique, we had last $100,000 as of December. I’m sure the Feb CS #’s will show a bit larger, more accurate fall.ParticipantSD price data, per http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/Southern-CA/RRSCA080313.aspx
Feb 08, median: $415,000. Using median prices, we now officially have lost over $100,000 of value.ParticipantSD price data, per http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/Southern-CA/RRSCA080313.aspx
Feb 08, median: $415,000. Using median prices, we now officially have lost over $100,000 of value.ParticipantSD price data, per http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/Southern-CA/RRSCA080313.aspx
Feb 08, median: $415,000. Using median prices, we now officially have lost over $100,000 of value.ParticipantSD price data, per http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/Southern-CA/RRSCA080313.aspx
Feb 08, median: $415,000. Using median prices, we now officially have lost over $100,000 of value.ParticipantSD price data, per http://www.dqnews.com/News/California/Southern-CA/RRSCA080313.aspx
Feb 08, median: $415,000. Using median prices, we now officially have lost over $100,000 of value. -
AuthorPosts