RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Still no PROXYTrade4ever, do you just argue just for the sake of arguing? you are talking about someone in particular, although with discretion and in code (hence the "XYZs"), which I think is prudent until it is final and public), and a particular other company. We both know what you are talking about. You know that person is not the CEO or president of that other company, so your whole rationale in your long post about this has an important fact wrong. It was your post that proposed this theory / concern - I only pointed out one factual error. And then you come back and say it isn't clear and so I am wrong because there are no facts (because it isn't public or final yet)??
I don't understand your logic at all. Your '"XYZ" is going to steal CDOs property post' was direcetly aimed at someone in particular, trying to turn what I think will be a signifcant good news change for CDO into a negative - you are wrong on one of your facts and you know it, and then you hide behind the confidentiality of the information and same I am wrong because we have no facts! You put the post and theory out there man, just admit you had one of your facts wrong.