Pollyollie

It's not knowing how to spell basic words that really shows you as ignorant (not just an occasional mistake). These are second and third grade spelling words. to, too, lose (not loose), their, there, they're, your, you're, where, were,does And please, don't say bare with me;-we are not getting naked together (it's bear with me). It's like I told my kids- the way you know a person is a bum is by their outward appearance. It's the same with the written word. And yes, of course there is an exception for people from other countries and people with dyslexia, and the occasional typo but they are easily distinguished. But people who misspell the above words do so repeatedly.

Hi Mark. First, thanks for your research. I have a question for you (please understand that I am not disagreeing with you, just trying to sort out the verbiage). As an attorney you know that every word in the legal world has meaning. My question is, in the sentence, "except that such term shall not include any transaction to the extent that expenses properly allocable to such transaction meet the requirement of --", how do you reconcile the use of the phrase, "to the extent that"? In English (I'm a retired English teacher) that phrase means, "as far as", or more technically, "to the farthest range". Note that the sentence, "except that such term shall not include any transaction to the extent that expenses properly allocable to such transaction meet the requirement of --" does not have the same meaning as the sentence, "except that such term shall not include any transaction which includes expenses properly allocable to such transaction meet the requirement of --" In the first sentence it appears that they are talking about "expenses", while in the second sentence is talking about the "transaction". The meaning of the first sentence would be, "except that such term shall not include any transaction (as far as) expenses properly allocable to such transaction meet the requirement of --" In other words it looks like by using the phrase, "to the extent", they are separating out certain expenses from the transaction. I suspect that they have improperly used the phrase, but just wondered what your take on it would be.

Sorry, but in order to win a lawsuit of fraud from these rumors, you would have to prove a number of things which would be impossible to prove. Two of those things alone would make this impossible. For instance you would have to prove that you were injured as a result of their actions, and that would mean that you lost money on the deal (so if it revalues at all, you're out on that-doesn't matter if it's less than they claimed). Also you would have to prove a reasonable reliance on what they said. Since it would not be reasonable to rely on a rumor from someone you don't know (whose real name you don't even know), written in a rumor section, well, fuhgedaboudit. Additionally, if you think that the court system is there to help innocent people, you have not been very involved in court.

This would only be true if the bank knew that it would make a profit on the deal, either in the exchange or in the value of the dinar.

I must say that I'm impressed with the efforts of both sides' computations. I have one observation and one opinion. Observation: Computations are only as good as the facts and assumptions upon which they are based. Also, one flaw in the ointment may be assuming that the RV will be logically- financially-based rather than agenda-based. Opinion: Based on the vile and insane U.S. monetary paradigm and my belief that big money interests are guiding the RV, it is my opinion that certain U.S. political factions may intend to stay in power by using the RV to bring money to the US (or escape with it). If true, then the RV will not be small.

I just want to say that it is NOT true that no one knows the DATE and RATE. Some people know. We just don't know who they are! LOL (actually, somebody knows who they are!) My heads spinning.