InvestorsHub Logo

Lawrence 147

07/21/10 8:56 PM

#224681 RE: rramirez82 #224680

Personally I was elated. I pray they hit a Grand Slam.

ETO-Castle

07/21/10 9:07 PM

#224683 RE: rramirez82 #224680

I think if are not swinging for the fences...then we are shorting ourselves

uzualsuzpect

07/21/10 9:19 PM

#224685 RE: rramirez82 #224680

Risk, Reward, and Entrepreneurship....

There's plenty of George Herman Ruth Jr.'s here in this game.

AIMO

drkazmd65

07/21/10 9:23 PM

#224686 RE: rramirez82 #224680

I like the odd Baseball anology as much as the next guy - but I also don't see what's wrong with 'swinging for the fences'?

That's kind of the point in an advesarial proceeding isn't it? To score more than the other team does?

STRIKEEAGLE

07/21/10 9:29 PM

#224690 RE: rramirez82 #224680

Funny you should ask Ramirez...


I thought his whole presentation was a Crock!

He came across to (me) as a young punk attorney who recently was fired from his 5th attempt at Broadway. Much of a winer... fumbling through his attempt to convince THJMW otherwise.

During the break, he stood front and center talking with one of his hack buddies... I moved closer and was surprised at how "close" I was able to stand and listen... within inches, as the courtroom was packed (again). He and Hack were talking about "who" actually would name/approve the Examiner. Both stated that they believed the decision would come from someone in DC.

I am not a violent person (can easily take care of myself... black belt and boxing lessons from my buddies in flight school), but I must admit, it is difficult to keep from providing some of these empty suits with some real "soreness".


AIMHO

cheechmoney

07/21/10 9:30 PM

#224692 RE: rramirez82 #224680

what would he rather us do? bunt..lol

trailblazin

07/21/10 9:37 PM

#224694 RE: rramirez82 #224680

I wanted to inquire as to whether anyone else felt betrayed and insulted when Susheel Kirpalani stated the Equity Committee was "swinging for the fences" in his opening statement?



sure we're swinging for the fence....but my initial thought was that it's laughable to think any party in this proceeding hasn't been "swinging for the fence." I'd take it a step further and say that our opponents, with the lack of "fair play", have been "swinging for the fence and aiming for the cute little kid in the 4th row." B*stards.

jmho

rramirez82

07/21/10 10:29 PM

#224700 RE: rramirez82 #224680

I'm glad everyone agrees. We should be "swinging for the fences" and it's a damn shame the estate didn't even try to get up and bat. I don't see how they could possibly justify a "settlement" that is based on $4 billion of our own money and $1.9 billion of our own NOL-based tax returns. That's not a settlement by any stretch of the imagination - it's an insult to our intelligence and a total joke.