[urbanrealtor]

[quote=scaredycat]hey that’s kinda profound[/quote]
Sorry about that.
I wasn’t going for quote of the week.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=scaredycat]hey that’s kinda profound[/quote]
Sorry about that.
I wasn’t going for quote of the week.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor]Accretion of power is not the monster. Poor management is the monster. I think that is as true of the terror or the inquisition, as it is of Weimar.

Put differently, I don’t believe in evil. Just incompetence.

I think those labels just muddy it up.[/quote]

Dan: You don’t believe in evil? Since this is probably the most arguable point of all, I won’t dwell on it overmuch, but I will say this: Evil does exist.

It exists in the individual, whether it’s Dahmer or Bundy or the nameless SS officer shooting a Jewish mother and daughter in a field in the Ukraine. It exists in the state, or the system, or the church or the mosque.

I don’t disagree about incompetence, and we’re truly fortunate that the Nazis were as incompetent as they were, but words like “naive” and “poor” and glib phrases like “power sharing” speak to another evil and that is moral equivalence. Things are no longer right or wrong when viewed through this prism, they’re simply different. And that excuses ALL acts and ALL actors.

Hitler devolves from being a moral monster into an incompetent that simply couldn’t get along or play well with others and he led Germany into oblivion.

Let’s not be judgmental, right? As Americans, we should remain silent about genocide because of our conduct in the Indian Wars. We can’t discuss China’s nascent imperialism because of our own forays, whether in the Spanish-American War or Vietnam. We’re silent on race and racism because we’re reminded daily about our own sorry history, whether in slavery or the rough path of the Civil Rights movement.

And people wonder why intelligent discourse is at an all-time low. Fear. Fear of being labeled politically incorrect or a racist or a sexist or an ageist. Fear of not getting the proper nomenclature down or not using the right symbols, tropes, icons, memes or rubric.

It is ALL about power, Dan, and has always been about power and no matter who you forgive or ignore or marginalize as being incompetent, it’s the same game.[/quote]

There is a lot to address in this post but I will start with the obvious by pointing out that saying that power “is all about power” is not an example of thoughtful discourse.
What I was trying to say (and apparently failed to communicate effectively) is that the successful consolidation of that power is due to incompetence.

I genuinely believe that the personality type that falls under the dictator rubric is not unique or terrible special.

You just end up with power mongers gaming a dumb system.

As to your tangent:
I don’t consider serial killers really relevant to political megalomania. John Wayne Gacy is in no danger (nor was he ever) of winning political office.

I don’t particularly think that power sharing or other concepts of control excuse or minimize evil acts (and yes, I do consider certain acts to be evil) however, the success of ambition without regard to welfare is, in my mind, not ultimately about evil.

Putting that differently:
There is lots of evil in the world.
However, it is incompetence that allows it to succeed.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor]Accretion of power is not the monster. Poor management is the monster. I think that is as true of the terror or the inquisition, as it is of Weimar.

Put differently, I don’t believe in evil. Just incompetence.

I think those labels just muddy it up.[/quote]

Dan: You don’t believe in evil? Since this is probably the most arguable point of all, I won’t dwell on it overmuch, but I will say this: Evil does exist.

It exists in the individual, whether it’s Dahmer or Bundy or the nameless SS officer shooting a Jewish mother and daughter in a field in the Ukraine. It exists in the state, or the system, or the church or the mosque.

I don’t disagree about incompetence, and we’re truly fortunate that the Nazis were as incompetent as they were, but words like “naive” and “poor” and glib phrases like “power sharing” speak to another evil and that is moral equivalence. Things are no longer right or wrong when viewed through this prism, they’re simply different. And that excuses ALL acts and ALL actors.

Hitler devolves from being a moral monster into an incompetent that simply couldn’t get along or play well with others and he led Germany into oblivion.

Let’s not be judgmental, right? As Americans, we should remain silent about genocide because of our conduct in the Indian Wars. We can’t discuss China’s nascent imperialism because of our own forays, whether in the Spanish-American War or Vietnam. We’re silent on race and racism because we’re reminded daily about our own sorry history, whether in slavery or the rough path of the Civil Rights movement.

And people wonder why intelligent discourse is at an all-time low. Fear. Fear of being labeled politically incorrect or a racist or a sexist or an ageist. Fear of not getting the proper nomenclature down or not using the right symbols, tropes, icons, memes or rubric.

It is ALL about power, Dan, and has always been about power and no matter who you forgive or ignore or marginalize as being incompetent, it’s the same game.[/quote]

There is a lot to address in this post but I will start with the obvious by pointing out that saying that power “is all about power” is not an example of thoughtful discourse.
What I was trying to say (and apparently failed to communicate effectively) is that the successful consolidation of that power is due to incompetence.

I genuinely believe that the personality type that falls under the dictator rubric is not unique or terrible special.

You just end up with power mongers gaming a dumb system.

As to your tangent:
I don’t consider serial killers really relevant to political megalomania. John Wayne Gacy is in no danger (nor was he ever) of winning political office.

I don’t particularly think that power sharing or other concepts of control excuse or minimize evil acts (and yes, I do consider certain acts to be evil) however, the success of ambition without regard to welfare is, in my mind, not ultimately about evil.

Putting that differently:
There is lots of evil in the world.
However, it is incompetence that allows it to succeed.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor]Accretion of power is not the monster. Poor management is the monster. I think that is as true of the terror or the inquisition, as it is of Weimar.

Put differently, I don’t believe in evil. Just incompetence.

I think those labels just muddy it up.[/quote]

Dan: You don’t believe in evil? Since this is probably the most arguable point of all, I won’t dwell on it overmuch, but I will say this: Evil does exist.

It exists in the individual, whether it’s Dahmer or Bundy or the nameless SS officer shooting a Jewish mother and daughter in a field in the Ukraine. It exists in the state, or the system, or the church or the mosque.

I don’t disagree about incompetence, and we’re truly fortunate that the Nazis were as incompetent as they were, but words like “naive” and “poor” and glib phrases like “power sharing” speak to another evil and that is moral equivalence. Things are no longer right or wrong when viewed through this prism, they’re simply different. And that excuses ALL acts and ALL actors.

Hitler devolves from being a moral monster into an incompetent that simply couldn’t get along or play well with others and he led Germany into oblivion.

Let’s not be judgmental, right? As Americans, we should remain silent about genocide because of our conduct in the Indian Wars. We can’t discuss China’s nascent imperialism because of our own forays, whether in the Spanish-American War or Vietnam. We’re silent on race and racism because we’re reminded daily about our own sorry history, whether in slavery or the rough path of the Civil Rights movement.

And people wonder why intelligent discourse is at an all-time low. Fear. Fear of being labeled politically incorrect or a racist or a sexist or an ageist. Fear of not getting the proper nomenclature down or not using the right symbols, tropes, icons, memes or rubric.

It is ALL about power, Dan, and has always been about power and no matter who you forgive or ignore or marginalize as being incompetent, it’s the same game.[/quote]

There is a lot to address in this post but I will start with the obvious by pointing out that saying that power “is all about power” is not an example of thoughtful discourse.
What I was trying to say (and apparently failed to communicate effectively) is that the successful consolidation of that power is due to incompetence.

I genuinely believe that the personality type that falls under the dictator rubric is not unique or terrible special.

You just end up with power mongers gaming a dumb system.

As to your tangent:
I don’t consider serial killers really relevant to political megalomania. John Wayne Gacy is in no danger (nor was he ever) of winning political office.

I don’t particularly think that power sharing or other concepts of control excuse or minimize evil acts (and yes, I do consider certain acts to be evil) however, the success of ambition without regard to welfare is, in my mind, not ultimately about evil.

Putting that differently:
There is lots of evil in the world.
However, it is incompetence that allows it to succeed.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor]Accretion of power is not the monster. Poor management is the monster. I think that is as true of the terror or the inquisition, as it is of Weimar.

Put differently, I don’t believe in evil. Just incompetence.

I think those labels just muddy it up.[/quote]

Dan: You don’t believe in evil? Since this is probably the most arguable point of all, I won’t dwell on it overmuch, but I will say this: Evil does exist.

It exists in the individual, whether it’s Dahmer or Bundy or the nameless SS officer shooting a Jewish mother and daughter in a field in the Ukraine. It exists in the state, or the system, or the church or the mosque.

I don’t disagree about incompetence, and we’re truly fortunate that the Nazis were as incompetent as they were, but words like “naive” and “poor” and glib phrases like “power sharing” speak to another evil and that is moral equivalence. Things are no longer right or wrong when viewed through this prism, they’re simply different. And that excuses ALL acts and ALL actors.

Hitler devolves from being a moral monster into an incompetent that simply couldn’t get along or play well with others and he led Germany into oblivion.

Let’s not be judgmental, right? As Americans, we should remain silent about genocide because of our conduct in the Indian Wars. We can’t discuss China’s nascent imperialism because of our own forays, whether in the Spanish-American War or Vietnam. We’re silent on race and racism because we’re reminded daily about our own sorry history, whether in slavery or the rough path of the Civil Rights movement.

And people wonder why intelligent discourse is at an all-time low. Fear. Fear of being labeled politically incorrect or a racist or a sexist or an ageist. Fear of not getting the proper nomenclature down or not using the right symbols, tropes, icons, memes or rubric.

It is ALL about power, Dan, and has always been about power and no matter who you forgive or ignore or marginalize as being incompetent, it’s the same game.[/quote]

There is a lot to address in this post but I will start with the obvious by pointing out that saying that power “is all about power” is not an example of thoughtful discourse.
What I was trying to say (and apparently failed to communicate effectively) is that the successful consolidation of that power is due to incompetence.

I genuinely believe that the personality type that falls under the dictator rubric is not unique or terrible special.

You just end up with power mongers gaming a dumb system.

As to your tangent:
I don’t consider serial killers really relevant to political megalomania. John Wayne Gacy is in no danger (nor was he ever) of winning political office.

I don’t particularly think that power sharing or other concepts of control excuse or minimize evil acts (and yes, I do consider certain acts to be evil) however, the success of ambition without regard to welfare is, in my mind, not ultimately about evil.

Putting that differently:
There is lots of evil in the world.
However, it is incompetence that allows it to succeed.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=urbanrealtor]Accretion of power is not the monster. Poor management is the monster. I think that is as true of the terror or the inquisition, as it is of Weimar.

Put differently, I don’t believe in evil. Just incompetence.

I think those labels just muddy it up.[/quote]

Dan: You don’t believe in evil? Since this is probably the most arguable point of all, I won’t dwell on it overmuch, but I will say this: Evil does exist.

It exists in the individual, whether it’s Dahmer or Bundy or the nameless SS officer shooting a Jewish mother and daughter in a field in the Ukraine. It exists in the state, or the system, or the church or the mosque.

I don’t disagree about incompetence, and we’re truly fortunate that the Nazis were as incompetent as they were, but words like “naive” and “poor” and glib phrases like “power sharing” speak to another evil and that is moral equivalence. Things are no longer right or wrong when viewed through this prism, they’re simply different. And that excuses ALL acts and ALL actors.

Hitler devolves from being a moral monster into an incompetent that simply couldn’t get along or play well with others and he led Germany into oblivion.

Let’s not be judgmental, right? As Americans, we should remain silent about genocide because of our conduct in the Indian Wars. We can’t discuss China’s nascent imperialism because of our own forays, whether in the Spanish-American War or Vietnam. We’re silent on race and racism because we’re reminded daily about our own sorry history, whether in slavery or the rough path of the Civil Rights movement.

And people wonder why intelligent discourse is at an all-time low. Fear. Fear of being labeled politically incorrect or a racist or a sexist or an ageist. Fear of not getting the proper nomenclature down or not using the right symbols, tropes, icons, memes or rubric.

It is ALL about power, Dan, and has always been about power and no matter who you forgive or ignore or marginalize as being incompetent, it’s the same game.[/quote]

There is a lot to address in this post but I will start with the obvious by pointing out that saying that power “is all about power” is not an example of thoughtful discourse.
What I was trying to say (and apparently failed to communicate effectively) is that the successful consolidation of that power is due to incompetence.

I genuinely believe that the personality type that falls under the dictator rubric is not unique or terrible special.

You just end up with power mongers gaming a dumb system.

As to your tangent:
I don’t consider serial killers really relevant to political megalomania. John Wayne Gacy is in no danger (nor was he ever) of winning political office.

I don’t particularly think that power sharing or other concepts of control excuse or minimize evil acts (and yes, I do consider certain acts to be evil) however, the success of ambition without regard to welfare is, in my mind, not ultimately about evil.

Putting that differently:
There is lots of evil in the world.
However, it is incompetence that allows it to succeed.

[urbanrealtor]

Typically, they are due within one week of offer acceptance.
I don’t provide them beforehand because if the house waits too long, sometimes things change and so the disclosures need to be updated.
Though honestly there is nothing wrong with having them available before marketing the house.

[urbanrealtor]

Typically, they are due within one week of offer acceptance.
I don’t provide them beforehand because if the house waits too long, sometimes things change and so the disclosures need to be updated.
Though honestly there is nothing wrong with having them available before marketing the house.

[urbanrealtor]

Typically, they are due within one week of offer acceptance.
I don’t provide them beforehand because if the house waits too long, sometimes things change and so the disclosures need to be updated.
Though honestly there is nothing wrong with having them available before marketing the house.

[urbanrealtor]

Typically, they are due within one week of offer acceptance.
I don’t provide them beforehand because if the house waits too long, sometimes things change and so the disclosures need to be updated.
Though honestly there is nothing wrong with having them available before marketing the house.

[urbanrealtor]

Typically, they are due within one week of offer acceptance.
I don’t provide them beforehand because if the house waits too long, sometimes things change and so the disclosures need to be updated.
Though honestly there is nothing wrong with having them available before marketing the house.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again, reading the original post it looks like the poster is not complaining about the lien being cleared due to the short pay. In fact the poster was actually specific to mention HOA stuff.

So my guess is either that the seller is reneging on paying HOA document transfer fees, which of course are clearly spelled out in the RPA, or the seller is not paying off the HOA backpayments. [/quote]
I took the implication to be back payments as they are incredibly common in shorts.
[quote=SD Realtor]
In reality the RPA does indeed cover these issues as well. On page 2 of the RPA HOA document and transfer fees are specified to be paid for by the buyer or the seller. It is very clear and concise.
[/quote]Okay, I see the miscommunication here. WHen I said “It makes no mention of…” I was referring to the post, not the RPA. Also, we don’t know if the OP is using a CAR RPA.
[quote=SD Realtor]
On page 3 section 12B there is a discussion about liens. Now in that section it does not state the Seller HAS to pay those off![/quote]
Page 4 actually. Again ASSUMING he is using the CAR RPA, then there is room for flex “..except monetary liens unless buyer is assuming those obligations” (RPA: par12(a)(i))[quote=SD Realtor] However in section 12C it DOES say that the seller has a duty of disclosure to the buyer about those matters affecting title and an HOA lien would be just that if there is a deficiency owed.
[/quote]Disclosure does not appear to be at issue in the post and that would already have been disclosed in the Prelim.[quote=SD Realtor]
My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales[/quote]That is as stretch of an assumption. That does not seem in evidence to me. Though I could be mistaken.[quote=SD Realtor] and is not griping about the lender accepting or not accepting the short payout. However it appears (and again perhaps my assumption is wrong) is that the poster is griping about the seller agreeing in the contract to pay for items that the seller is now defaulting on.
[/quote]Again, where in the original post do you see that implied?[quote=SD Realtor]
I agree with the point that in any short sale the sellers pretty much are not going to pay for squat and let my clients know that from the beginning. I would say the buyers agent should have let him/her know that but there is a point made here that agreed to conditions in the contract, when signed by both parties should be honored and the poster does make a point to query if they would be held up in court. I think they very well would be or at least should be.[/quote] I don’t know enough about the case as to whether it would really hold up but Paragraph 12 does not incline me to believe so. I do agree with you that it should be more clear to the buyer but as I stated earlier, this does not bespeak familiarity with the process.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again, reading the original post it looks like the poster is not complaining about the lien being cleared due to the short pay. In fact the poster was actually specific to mention HOA stuff.

So my guess is either that the seller is reneging on paying HOA document transfer fees, which of course are clearly spelled out in the RPA, or the seller is not paying off the HOA backpayments. [/quote]
I took the implication to be back payments as they are incredibly common in shorts.
[quote=SD Realtor]
In reality the RPA does indeed cover these issues as well. On page 2 of the RPA HOA document and transfer fees are specified to be paid for by the buyer or the seller. It is very clear and concise.
[/quote]Okay, I see the miscommunication here. WHen I said “It makes no mention of…” I was referring to the post, not the RPA. Also, we don’t know if the OP is using a CAR RPA.
[quote=SD Realtor]
On page 3 section 12B there is a discussion about liens. Now in that section it does not state the Seller HAS to pay those off![/quote]
Page 4 actually. Again ASSUMING he is using the CAR RPA, then there is room for flex “..except monetary liens unless buyer is assuming those obligations” (RPA: par12(a)(i))[quote=SD Realtor] However in section 12C it DOES say that the seller has a duty of disclosure to the buyer about those matters affecting title and an HOA lien would be just that if there is a deficiency owed.
[/quote]Disclosure does not appear to be at issue in the post and that would already have been disclosed in the Prelim.[quote=SD Realtor]
My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales[/quote]That is as stretch of an assumption. That does not seem in evidence to me. Though I could be mistaken.[quote=SD Realtor] and is not griping about the lender accepting or not accepting the short payout. However it appears (and again perhaps my assumption is wrong) is that the poster is griping about the seller agreeing in the contract to pay for items that the seller is now defaulting on.
[/quote]Again, where in the original post do you see that implied?[quote=SD Realtor]
I agree with the point that in any short sale the sellers pretty much are not going to pay for squat and let my clients know that from the beginning. I would say the buyers agent should have let him/her know that but there is a point made here that agreed to conditions in the contract, when signed by both parties should be honored and the poster does make a point to query if they would be held up in court. I think they very well would be or at least should be.[/quote] I don’t know enough about the case as to whether it would really hold up but Paragraph 12 does not incline me to believe so. I do agree with you that it should be more clear to the buyer but as I stated earlier, this does not bespeak familiarity with the process.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=SD Realtor]Again, reading the original post it looks like the poster is not complaining about the lien being cleared due to the short pay. In fact the poster was actually specific to mention HOA stuff.

So my guess is either that the seller is reneging on paying HOA document transfer fees, which of course are clearly spelled out in the RPA, or the seller is not paying off the HOA backpayments. [/quote]
I took the implication to be back payments as they are incredibly common in shorts.
[quote=SD Realtor]
In reality the RPA does indeed cover these issues as well. On page 2 of the RPA HOA document and transfer fees are specified to be paid for by the buyer or the seller. It is very clear and concise.
[/quote]Okay, I see the miscommunication here. WHen I said “It makes no mention of…” I was referring to the post, not the RPA. Also, we don’t know if the OP is using a CAR RPA.
[quote=SD Realtor]
On page 3 section 12B there is a discussion about liens. Now in that section it does not state the Seller HAS to pay those off![/quote]
Page 4 actually. Again ASSUMING he is using the CAR RPA, then there is room for flex “..except monetary liens unless buyer is assuming those obligations” (RPA: par12(a)(i))[quote=SD Realtor] However in section 12C it DOES say that the seller has a duty of disclosure to the buyer about those matters affecting title and an HOA lien would be just that if there is a deficiency owed.
[/quote]Disclosure does not appear to be at issue in the post and that would already have been disclosed in the Prelim.[quote=SD Realtor]
My point is, I am assuming the original poster understands short sales[/quote]That is as stretch of an assumption. That does not seem in evidence to me. Though I could be mistaken.[quote=SD Realtor] and is not griping about the lender accepting or not accepting the short payout. However it appears (and again perhaps my assumption is wrong) is that the poster is griping about the seller agreeing in the contract to pay for items that the seller is now defaulting on.
[/quote]Again, where in the original post do you see that implied?[quote=SD Realtor]
I agree with the point that in any short sale the sellers pretty much are not going to pay for squat and let my clients know that from the beginning. I would say the buyers agent should have let him/her know that but there is a point made here that agreed to conditions in the contract, when signed by both parties should be honored and the poster does make a point to query if they would be held up in court. I think they very well would be or at least should be.[/quote] I don’t know enough about the case as to whether it would really hold up but Paragraph 12 does not incline me to believe so. I do agree with you that it should be more clear to the buyer but as I stated earlier, this does not bespeak familiarity with the process.

[Author]

Posts