[urbanrealtor]

[quote=MadeInTaiwan][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: It doesn’t have anything to do with being ashamed of slavery. It has to do with the causes (note the plural) of the war, of which slavery was only one (but NOT the most important one).

And, yeah, State’s Rights were definitely in there (which, if you read “For Cause and Comrades”, you’ll see)…[/quote]

Allan,

You are well learned in many areas, but you are wrong about the cause of Civil War. Slavery was the main driving force.

This is but one primary source.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

What was the State’s right that the South was concerned about? Slavery[/quote]

Here is the Confederate Constitution.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

Fun trick:
do a ctrl f for “negro” and “slave”.

Enjoy.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=MadeInTaiwan][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]

Brian: It doesn’t have anything to do with being ashamed of slavery. It has to do with the causes (note the plural) of the war, of which slavery was only one (but NOT the most important one).

And, yeah, State’s Rights were definitely in there (which, if you read “For Cause and Comrades”, you’ll see)…[/quote]

Allan,

You are well learned in many areas, but you are wrong about the cause of Civil War. Slavery was the main driving force.

This is but one primary source.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

What was the State’s right that the South was concerned about? Slavery[/quote]

Here is the Confederate Constitution.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

Fun trick:
do a ctrl f for “negro” and “slave”.

Enjoy.

[urbanrealtor]

With regard to sdr’s post:
I agree.
I am working my first full blown HAFA now and a buyer is not required for approval.
The bank decides the property’s market value and then what percentage of that value they need to net for it to be acceptable.
Then I have 120 days to get a buyer (which is probably more than needed).
I would very much like to see this program extended to all short sales as a matter of law or with some government incentive.

With regard to CAR’s assertions about what constitutes an open market transaction:
All components of arm’s length that you referenced are present in all my deals.
In the case of the agent who made an unsolicited offer, that buyer had was an unrelated party to the seller.
Any person looking to buy had the same opportunity.
Entry into the MLS and a sign in front are not necessary components of an arm’s length or open market transaction.
Often, they are a requirement of the short sale lender.
However, it would be inaccurate to call an unsolicited offer and “inside deal” much less fraud.

As far as CAR’s definition of fraud:
This is a point I should concede.
Omissions of material facts can constitute fraud.
The issue is defining what constitutes a material fact.

As stated above, I would fully welcome and endorse a uniform blanket set of requirements for short sales.
At present, the banks are totally disorganized and inconsistent.
Often they cause foreclosures through their own inaction and foolishness.
That is good money they are wasting when they do that.

[urbanrealtor]

With regard to sdr’s post:
I agree.
I am working my first full blown HAFA now and a buyer is not required for approval.
The bank decides the property’s market value and then what percentage of that value they need to net for it to be acceptable.
Then I have 120 days to get a buyer (which is probably more than needed).
I would very much like to see this program extended to all short sales as a matter of law or with some government incentive.

With regard to CAR’s assertions about what constitutes an open market transaction:
All components of arm’s length that you referenced are present in all my deals.
In the case of the agent who made an unsolicited offer, that buyer had was an unrelated party to the seller.
Any person looking to buy had the same opportunity.
Entry into the MLS and a sign in front are not necessary components of an arm’s length or open market transaction.
Often, they are a requirement of the short sale lender.
However, it would be inaccurate to call an unsolicited offer and “inside deal” much less fraud.

As far as CAR’s definition of fraud:
This is a point I should concede.
Omissions of material facts can constitute fraud.
The issue is defining what constitutes a material fact.

As stated above, I would fully welcome and endorse a uniform blanket set of requirements for short sales.
At present, the banks are totally disorganized and inconsistent.
Often they cause foreclosures through their own inaction and foolishness.
That is good money they are wasting when they do that.

[urbanrealtor]

With regard to sdr’s post:
I agree.
I am working my first full blown HAFA now and a buyer is not required for approval.
The bank decides the property’s market value and then what percentage of that value they need to net for it to be acceptable.
Then I have 120 days to get a buyer (which is probably more than needed).
I would very much like to see this program extended to all short sales as a matter of law or with some government incentive.

With regard to CAR’s assertions about what constitutes an open market transaction:
All components of arm’s length that you referenced are present in all my deals.
In the case of the agent who made an unsolicited offer, that buyer had was an unrelated party to the seller.
Any person looking to buy had the same opportunity.
Entry into the MLS and a sign in front are not necessary components of an arm’s length or open market transaction.
Often, they are a requirement of the short sale lender.
However, it would be inaccurate to call an unsolicited offer and “inside deal” much less fraud.

As far as CAR’s definition of fraud:
This is a point I should concede.
Omissions of material facts can constitute fraud.
The issue is defining what constitutes a material fact.

As stated above, I would fully welcome and endorse a uniform blanket set of requirements for short sales.
At present, the banks are totally disorganized and inconsistent.
Often they cause foreclosures through their own inaction and foolishness.
That is good money they are wasting when they do that.

[urbanrealtor]

With regard to sdr’s post:
I agree.
I am working my first full blown HAFA now and a buyer is not required for approval.
The bank decides the property’s market value and then what percentage of that value they need to net for it to be acceptable.
Then I have 120 days to get a buyer (which is probably more than needed).
I would very much like to see this program extended to all short sales as a matter of law or with some government incentive.

With regard to CAR’s assertions about what constitutes an open market transaction:
All components of arm’s length that you referenced are present in all my deals.
In the case of the agent who made an unsolicited offer, that buyer had was an unrelated party to the seller.
Any person looking to buy had the same opportunity.
Entry into the MLS and a sign in front are not necessary components of an arm’s length or open market transaction.
Often, they are a requirement of the short sale lender.
However, it would be inaccurate to call an unsolicited offer and “inside deal” much less fraud.

As far as CAR’s definition of fraud:
This is a point I should concede.
Omissions of material facts can constitute fraud.
The issue is defining what constitutes a material fact.

As stated above, I would fully welcome and endorse a uniform blanket set of requirements for short sales.
At present, the banks are totally disorganized and inconsistent.
Often they cause foreclosures through their own inaction and foolishness.
That is good money they are wasting when they do that.

[urbanrealtor]

With regard to sdr’s post:
I agree.
I am working my first full blown HAFA now and a buyer is not required for approval.
The bank decides the property’s market value and then what percentage of that value they need to net for it to be acceptable.
Then I have 120 days to get a buyer (which is probably more than needed).
I would very much like to see this program extended to all short sales as a matter of law or with some government incentive.

With regard to CAR’s assertions about what constitutes an open market transaction:
All components of arm’s length that you referenced are present in all my deals.
In the case of the agent who made an unsolicited offer, that buyer had was an unrelated party to the seller.
Any person looking to buy had the same opportunity.
Entry into the MLS and a sign in front are not necessary components of an arm’s length or open market transaction.
Often, they are a requirement of the short sale lender.
However, it would be inaccurate to call an unsolicited offer and “inside deal” much less fraud.

As far as CAR’s definition of fraud:
This is a point I should concede.
Omissions of material facts can constitute fraud.
The issue is defining what constitutes a material fact.

As stated above, I would fully welcome and endorse a uniform blanket set of requirements for short sales.
At present, the banks are totally disorganized and inconsistent.
Often they cause foreclosures through their own inaction and foolishness.
That is good money they are wasting when they do that.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
…
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
…

Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.[/quote]
Wow.
This really went in a direction I did not intend.
I was intending to poke fun at a perceived inconsistency in your position.
The way I phrased it was poorly constructed and not well thought out.
Thus in the over-literal monotone of text my attempt a jocularity was both accusatory and generally dickish.
The fact that it was said with a grin did not convey and instead my post presented as literal and explicit denigration to your integrity in a public way.
That was not my intention at all and for the result I apologize sincerely.
It was quite foolish on my part to phrase it as I did in writing.
While I have enjoyed the few verbal joking debates that I have had with you, this is not the first time, I made a (written) joke with you that was taken very differently than I intended.
The fault is nobody’s but mine for misreading the social dynamic.
Apparently it takes me a few times of committing such errors to comprehend the pattern but it is very clear to me now.
From this point forward I shall undertake to keep my written communication with you very literal.
I do not think of you as a liar and I really did not mean to go in that direction.
I do not think that perceptual inconsistency denotes (or even necessarily connotes) dishonesty.
I take reputation as it regards personal integrity very seriously.
If someone accused me publicly of dishonesty (which, again, I did not mean to do but apparently did) I would take a very dim view of it (and likely address it with an attorney).
Again, my apologies.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
…
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
…

Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.[/quote]
Wow.
This really went in a direction I did not intend.
I was intending to poke fun at a perceived inconsistency in your position.
The way I phrased it was poorly constructed and not well thought out.
Thus in the over-literal monotone of text my attempt a jocularity was both accusatory and generally dickish.
The fact that it was said with a grin did not convey and instead my post presented as literal and explicit denigration to your integrity in a public way.
That was not my intention at all and for the result I apologize sincerely.
It was quite foolish on my part to phrase it as I did in writing.
While I have enjoyed the few verbal joking debates that I have had with you, this is not the first time, I made a (written) joke with you that was taken very differently than I intended.
The fault is nobody’s but mine for misreading the social dynamic.
Apparently it takes me a few times of committing such errors to comprehend the pattern but it is very clear to me now.
From this point forward I shall undertake to keep my written communication with you very literal.
I do not think of you as a liar and I really did not mean to go in that direction.
I do not think that perceptual inconsistency denotes (or even necessarily connotes) dishonesty.
I take reputation as it regards personal integrity very seriously.
If someone accused me publicly of dishonesty (which, again, I did not mean to do but apparently did) I would take a very dim view of it (and likely address it with an attorney).
Again, my apologies.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
…
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
…

Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.[/quote]
Wow.
This really went in a direction I did not intend.
I was intending to poke fun at a perceived inconsistency in your position.
The way I phrased it was poorly constructed and not well thought out.
Thus in the over-literal monotone of text my attempt a jocularity was both accusatory and generally dickish.
The fact that it was said with a grin did not convey and instead my post presented as literal and explicit denigration to your integrity in a public way.
That was not my intention at all and for the result I apologize sincerely.
It was quite foolish on my part to phrase it as I did in writing.
While I have enjoyed the few verbal joking debates that I have had with you, this is not the first time, I made a (written) joke with you that was taken very differently than I intended.
The fault is nobody’s but mine for misreading the social dynamic.
Apparently it takes me a few times of committing such errors to comprehend the pattern but it is very clear to me now.
From this point forward I shall undertake to keep my written communication with you very literal.
I do not think of you as a liar and I really did not mean to go in that direction.
I do not think that perceptual inconsistency denotes (or even necessarily connotes) dishonesty.
I take reputation as it regards personal integrity very seriously.
If someone accused me publicly of dishonesty (which, again, I did not mean to do but apparently did) I would take a very dim view of it (and likely address it with an attorney).
Again, my apologies.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
…
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
…

Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.[/quote]
Wow.
This really went in a direction I did not intend.
I was intending to poke fun at a perceived inconsistency in your position.
The way I phrased it was poorly constructed and not well thought out.
Thus in the over-literal monotone of text my attempt a jocularity was both accusatory and generally dickish.
The fact that it was said with a grin did not convey and instead my post presented as literal and explicit denigration to your integrity in a public way.
That was not my intention at all and for the result I apologize sincerely.
It was quite foolish on my part to phrase it as I did in writing.
While I have enjoyed the few verbal joking debates that I have had with you, this is not the first time, I made a (written) joke with you that was taken very differently than I intended.
The fault is nobody’s but mine for misreading the social dynamic.
Apparently it takes me a few times of committing such errors to comprehend the pattern but it is very clear to me now.
From this point forward I shall undertake to keep my written communication with you very literal.
I do not think of you as a liar and I really did not mean to go in that direction.
I do not think that perceptual inconsistency denotes (or even necessarily connotes) dishonesty.
I take reputation as it regards personal integrity very seriously.
If someone accused me publicly of dishonesty (which, again, I did not mean to do but apparently did) I would take a very dim view of it (and likely address it with an attorney).
Again, my apologies.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
…
As for the second part of your email, I really, really dislike it when people accuse me of being dishonest. Because I’m not dishonest. So it is offensive to me when people assume dishonesty rather than a simple miscommunication.
…

Next time there is a disagreement, please, ask me about it before accusing me of being a liar.[/quote]
Wow.
This really went in a direction I did not intend.
I was intending to poke fun at a perceived inconsistency in your position.
The way I phrased it was poorly constructed and not well thought out.
Thus in the over-literal monotone of text my attempt a jocularity was both accusatory and generally dickish.
The fact that it was said with a grin did not convey and instead my post presented as literal and explicit denigration to your integrity in a public way.
That was not my intention at all and for the result I apologize sincerely.
It was quite foolish on my part to phrase it as I did in writing.
While I have enjoyed the few verbal joking debates that I have had with you, this is not the first time, I made a (written) joke with you that was taken very differently than I intended.
The fault is nobody’s but mine for misreading the social dynamic.
Apparently it takes me a few times of committing such errors to comprehend the pattern but it is very clear to me now.
From this point forward I shall undertake to keep my written communication with you very literal.
I do not think of you as a liar and I really did not mean to go in that direction.
I do not think that perceptual inconsistency denotes (or even necessarily connotes) dishonesty.
I take reputation as it regards personal integrity very seriously.
If someone accused me publicly of dishonesty (which, again, I did not mean to do but apparently did) I would take a very dim view of it (and likely address it with an attorney).
Again, my apologies.

[urbanrealtor]

In case anyone was wondering the personal communication with Rich took place at the Pigg meetup in March of 2009.

[urbanrealtor]

In case anyone was wondering the personal communication with Rich took place at the Pigg meetup in March of 2009.

[urbanrealtor]

In case anyone was wondering the personal communication with Rich took place at the Pigg meetup in March of 2009.

[Author]

Posts