Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 16, 2010 at 4:06 PM in reply to: Shall we buy or never in San Diego or wait for more depreciation? #513664February 16, 2010 at 4:06 PM in reply to: Shall we buy or never in San Diego or wait for more depreciation? #513811
uneven
ParticipantHey pat. Simmer down. The op is asking a legitimate question and whether or not you agree doesn’t matter. Facts are useful, your sarcasm is useless.
Lemme guess. you bought in 85, sold in 90 before that crash, re bought and sold in 2007 at the peak right? And now you are waiting for bottom.
It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and do nothing.February 16, 2010 at 4:06 PM in reply to: Shall we buy or never in San Diego or wait for more depreciation? #514235ParticipantHey pat. Simmer down. The op is asking a legitimate question and whether or not you agree doesn’t matter. Facts are useful, your sarcasm is useless.
Lemme guess. you bought in 85, sold in 90 before that crash, re bought and sold in 2007 at the peak right? And now you are waiting for bottom.
It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and do nothing.February 16, 2010 at 4:06 PM in reply to: Shall we buy or never in San Diego or wait for more depreciation? #514327ParticipantHey pat. Simmer down. The op is asking a legitimate question and whether or not you agree doesn’t matter. Facts are useful, your sarcasm is useless.
Lemme guess. you bought in 85, sold in 90 before that crash, re bought and sold in 2007 at the peak right? And now you are waiting for bottom.
It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and do nothing.February 16, 2010 at 4:06 PM in reply to: Shall we buy or never in San Diego or wait for more depreciation? #514579ParticipantHey pat. Simmer down. The op is asking a legitimate question and whether or not you agree doesn’t matter. Facts are useful, your sarcasm is useless.
Lemme guess. you bought in 85, sold in 90 before that crash, re bought and sold in 2007 at the peak right? And now you are waiting for bottom.
It’s easy to sit on the sidelines and do nothing.January 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM in reply to: Landlords who try to sneak a home sale past tenants… #506731ParticipantSee I was right… 8bit, you are a good guy.
January 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM in reply to: Landlords who try to sneak a home sale past tenants… #506881ParticipantSee I was right… 8bit, you are a good guy.
January 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM in reply to: Landlords who try to sneak a home sale past tenants… #507289ParticipantSee I was right… 8bit, you are a good guy.
January 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM in reply to: Landlords who try to sneak a home sale past tenants… #507383ParticipantSee I was right… 8bit, you are a good guy.
January 28, 2010 at 6:32 PM in reply to: Landlords who try to sneak a home sale past tenants… #507637ParticipantSee I was right… 8bit, you are a good guy.
ParticipantThanks for the clarity SDR. I thought you “obviously” could only disclose what you know, so why add a clause that seems to absolve you of disclosing what you don’t know anyway, but still requires you to disclose what you do? I just confused myself and it doesn’t really matter to the poster anyway = )
ParticipantThanks for the clarity SDR. I thought you “obviously” could only disclose what you know, so why add a clause that seems to absolve you of disclosing what you don’t know anyway, but still requires you to disclose what you do? I just confused myself and it doesn’t really matter to the poster anyway = )
ParticipantThanks for the clarity SDR. I thought you “obviously” could only disclose what you know, so why add a clause that seems to absolve you of disclosing what you don’t know anyway, but still requires you to disclose what you do? I just confused myself and it doesn’t really matter to the poster anyway = )
ParticipantThanks for the clarity SDR. I thought you “obviously” could only disclose what you know, so why add a clause that seems to absolve you of disclosing what you don’t know anyway, but still requires you to disclose what you do? I just confused myself and it doesn’t really matter to the poster anyway = )
ParticipantThanks for the clarity SDR. I thought you “obviously” could only disclose what you know, so why add a clause that seems to absolve you of disclosing what you don’t know anyway, but still requires you to disclose what you do? I just confused myself and it doesn’t really matter to the poster anyway = )
-
AuthorPosts
