[UCGal]

[quote=Sarah G.]Invest or don’t invest. Personally, I don’t care. But utilize facts. Don’t make unsubstantiated generalizations and don’t mislead. If you question whether or not there is a personal guarantee and personal liability to Bartko, ask them or ask your attorney.
What should you do when you invest? Diversify.
There isn’t a right or wrong.
I can take either side and play devil’s advocate. But again, it doesn’t make this a good or bad investment. If, it is as presented, it might be a spectacular investment. Other than opinion here, there are no facts that are negative. Unless you invest, you won’t know if it is good and you won’t know if it is bad. If you have facts, knowledge and feel comfortable, invest or don’t invest. But make a decision based upon fact and knowledge not unsubstantiated opinion.

Lastly: Use your own opinion and especially utilize facts. If you are interested in the investment. Contact them. That’s the only way you’ll get “good” information and fact. You won’t learn anything here from posters that have opinion and no fact.

Sarah G.[/quote]

I think one of the issues here is the lack of supporting facts. Your advise seems to be “invest and hope”. You admit you can’t confirm it’s an “awesome” or “spectacular” investment until you put money at risk.

As others have pointed out – the business model seems very non-traditional for procurement for fortune 500 companies. I can’t speak to all fortune 500 companies – only the one I work for… this isn’t the way things are done here. That is a fact.

When NeetaT asked for documentation she was told they didn’t have any. (Read the OP.)

My point about the contractor was simple. You can enter a business arrangement (with starblaze, with a contractor, …) have clearly defined documents and have one side fail to perform and worse. You seem to suggest that if there are no complaints out there – you should assume the other party in the business arrangement is on the Up and Up. My experience shows this to be a bad assumption. Apples and bowling balls – it’s all business transactions.

[UCGal]

[quote=Sarah G.]Invest or don’t invest. Personally, I don’t care. But utilize facts. Don’t make unsubstantiated generalizations and don’t mislead. If you question whether or not there is a personal guarantee and personal liability to Bartko, ask them or ask your attorney.
What should you do when you invest? Diversify.
There isn’t a right or wrong.
I can take either side and play devil’s advocate. But again, it doesn’t make this a good or bad investment. If, it is as presented, it might be a spectacular investment. Other than opinion here, there are no facts that are negative. Unless you invest, you won’t know if it is good and you won’t know if it is bad. If you have facts, knowledge and feel comfortable, invest or don’t invest. But make a decision based upon fact and knowledge not unsubstantiated opinion.

Lastly: Use your own opinion and especially utilize facts. If you are interested in the investment. Contact them. That’s the only way you’ll get “good” information and fact. You won’t learn anything here from posters that have opinion and no fact.

Sarah G.[/quote]

I think one of the issues here is the lack of supporting facts. Your advise seems to be “invest and hope”. You admit you can’t confirm it’s an “awesome” or “spectacular” investment until you put money at risk.

As others have pointed out – the business model seems very non-traditional for procurement for fortune 500 companies. I can’t speak to all fortune 500 companies – only the one I work for… this isn’t the way things are done here. That is a fact.

When NeetaT asked for documentation she was told they didn’t have any. (Read the OP.)

My point about the contractor was simple. You can enter a business arrangement (with starblaze, with a contractor, …) have clearly defined documents and have one side fail to perform and worse. You seem to suggest that if there are no complaints out there – you should assume the other party in the business arrangement is on the Up and Up. My experience shows this to be a bad assumption. Apples and bowling balls – it’s all business transactions.

[UCGal]

[quote=Sarah G.]Invest or don’t invest. Personally, I don’t care. But utilize facts. Don’t make unsubstantiated generalizations and don’t mislead. If you question whether or not there is a personal guarantee and personal liability to Bartko, ask them or ask your attorney.
What should you do when you invest? Diversify.
There isn’t a right or wrong.
I can take either side and play devil’s advocate. But again, it doesn’t make this a good or bad investment. If, it is as presented, it might be a spectacular investment. Other than opinion here, there are no facts that are negative. Unless you invest, you won’t know if it is good and you won’t know if it is bad. If you have facts, knowledge and feel comfortable, invest or don’t invest. But make a decision based upon fact and knowledge not unsubstantiated opinion.

Lastly: Use your own opinion and especially utilize facts. If you are interested in the investment. Contact them. That’s the only way you’ll get “good” information and fact. You won’t learn anything here from posters that have opinion and no fact.

Sarah G.[/quote]

I think one of the issues here is the lack of supporting facts. Your advise seems to be “invest and hope”. You admit you can’t confirm it’s an “awesome” or “spectacular” investment until you put money at risk.

As others have pointed out – the business model seems very non-traditional for procurement for fortune 500 companies. I can’t speak to all fortune 500 companies – only the one I work for… this isn’t the way things are done here. That is a fact.

When NeetaT asked for documentation she was told they didn’t have any. (Read the OP.)

My point about the contractor was simple. You can enter a business arrangement (with starblaze, with a contractor, …) have clearly defined documents and have one side fail to perform and worse. You seem to suggest that if there are no complaints out there – you should assume the other party in the business arrangement is on the Up and Up. My experience shows this to be a bad assumption. Apples and bowling balls – it’s all business transactions.

[UCGal]

We locked on 4/13 and it was recorded on 5/20.

And we had a glitch – it got bumped back from underwriting because of our companion unit. (They wanted to call us a 2 unit investment property and get a reappraisal.) That added a week to the mess.

Who are you working with? I used Sheldon (HLS here on piggington). He was great.

[UCGal]

We locked on 4/13 and it was recorded on 5/20.

And we had a glitch – it got bumped back from underwriting because of our companion unit. (They wanted to call us a 2 unit investment property and get a reappraisal.) That added a week to the mess.

Who are you working with? I used Sheldon (HLS here on piggington). He was great.

[UCGal]

We locked on 4/13 and it was recorded on 5/20.

And we had a glitch – it got bumped back from underwriting because of our companion unit. (They wanted to call us a 2 unit investment property and get a reappraisal.) That added a week to the mess.

Who are you working with? I used Sheldon (HLS here on piggington). He was great.

[UCGal]

We locked on 4/13 and it was recorded on 5/20.

And we had a glitch – it got bumped back from underwriting because of our companion unit. (They wanted to call us a 2 unit investment property and get a reappraisal.) That added a week to the mess.

Who are you working with? I used Sheldon (HLS here on piggington). He was great.

[UCGal]

We locked on 4/13 and it was recorded on 5/20.

And we had a glitch – it got bumped back from underwriting because of our companion unit. (They wanted to call us a 2 unit investment property and get a reappraisal.) That added a week to the mess.

Who are you working with? I used Sheldon (HLS here on piggington). He was great.

[UCGal]

I wouldn’t bother to fix it, either, flu. I was just confused.

(I get confused easily. LOL.)

[UCGal]

I wouldn’t bother to fix it, either, flu. I was just confused.

(I get confused easily. LOL.)

[UCGal]

I wouldn’t bother to fix it, either, flu. I was just confused.

(I get confused easily. LOL.)

[UCGal]

I wouldn’t bother to fix it, either, flu. I was just confused.

(I get confused easily. LOL.)

[UCGal]

I wouldn’t bother to fix it, either, flu. I was just confused.

(I get confused easily. LOL.)

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.[/quote]

I’ve heard so many people talk about how she’s a racist and La Raza is the equivalent of the KKK. Extending that idea that she’d favor hispanics over others in her rulings, you’d think she would have ruled to favor the hispanic job candidate. Instead she favored blacks (not her racial group). That was my point.

Oh wait… Perhaps all non-whites are lumped together.

[UCGal]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=UCGal]And you guys (Zeit et al) realize that her Ricci decision actually overturned the promotion of a hispanic candidate.

So… if she’s such a scary person who would promote hispanic issues above those of white males – regardless of the law… why did she rule against the one hispanic fireman who’d passed the test? Kind of reverse ethnic pride, don’t you think?[/quote]

UCGal: You’re parsing words and facts here. This had nothing to do with the one Hispanic fireman, rather it had to with the fact that none of the black applicants made the cut (testing results) and so the test was thrown out.

If you were to reverse the colors/ethnicity, you’d have a good case for ‘ol Jim Crow there.[/quote]

I’ve heard so many people talk about how she’s a racist and La Raza is the equivalent of the KKK. Extending that idea that she’d favor hispanics over others in her rulings, you’d think she would have ruled to favor the hispanic job candidate. Instead she favored blacks (not her racial group). That was my point.

Oh wait… Perhaps all non-whites are lumped together.

[Author]

Posts