Granted, LashL refuses to accept the journalistic standards of the NY Times, but the articles I linked to state,
What are you talking about? It's not my fault if you do not understand how to read a judicial decision or understand what it means, and it's not my fault that some reporter used the wrong word in an article. It happens all the time, particularly in the online version of newspapers as they are often in a hurry to post something up and often get it wrong. They sometimes correct things in time for the print version of the newspaper, but
far from always.
Just a week ago, as an example, at the conclusion of a civil trial for libel, the website of various newspapers published stories saying that the defendant had been "found guilty" of libel and "fined" thousands of dollars. Of course, he hadn't been "found guilty" of anything since it was a civil trial, and of course, he wasn't "fined" thousands of dollars. Rather, he was found liable for the defamatory statement he made and damages were awarded to the plaintiff. Those errors are serious because they made it sound like a criminal trial (which it wasn't) with a subsequent conviction (which there wasn't) and accompanying "fines" (which there wasn't). These are serious errors because they perpetuate ignorance among the masses, rather than educating the masses. And these kinds of errors happen every day on news websites and in print versions of newspapers, usually because the reporter writing the story isn't very well versed in the subject matter (e.g. legal cases) and just submits what he or she thinks to be correct, even if it isn't, because he or she lacks understanding and doesn't ask the right questions. Plus, it sounds a whole lot more dramatic to go with buzz words to which the uneducated will react more strongly, and it's a whole lot less work than actually asking the right questions of the right people to get the story correct and to use the correct terms.
That's very similar to what your posts demonstrate here when you make silly claims, such as "Larry Silverstein made out like a bandit", or that Mr. Silverstein was "awarded" some kind of "windfall". Instead of making inquiries of knowledgeable parties to find out what actually occurred, you posit dramatic (and inaccurate) nonsense because it's a lot less work than actually acquiring legitimate knowledge and education on the matter. Where the comparison parts ways, though, is that newspapers will very often correct errors if and when they are drawn to the attention of the editors, but when you are provided with detailed explanations of how you got something wrong, you just blithely carry on as though you'd never been informed or corrected. It's bizarre, really.
The only lawsuits LS has filed since his windfall judgment are to bring his total to over 12 billion. I'm not aware of any filings to sue for proceeds from his original judgement. Are you?
Again, what on earth are you talking about? What is this "windfall" judgment of which you speak? I've already provided you (years ago and several times since then, up to and including very recently) with the information about the insurer lawsuits resulting in
a cap of $4.55 billion maximum (which is subject to all of the usual proof required of insured losses, etc.) and I've already provided you with the information that the later $12 billion lawsuit resulting in
a cap of $2.8 billion and even that amount was made subject to potential set-offs by the aviation defendants in the future, depending on what the insurers might
eventually pay out, (and in case you don't know what set-off means, the effect would be to
decrease that $2.8 billion cap, not increase it) so what are you babbling about now?
So no evidence that Silverstein made out like a bandit? Thought so.
None, indeed. And no evidence of a "windfall" either. No surprise there, either.
Can't you guys just ignore Red? He has never once provided evidence of his claims. its 10 years, and he still repeats lies that were lies from 2005.
True, but I don't mind trying to educate the educable by way of refuting the silly claims that RedIbis makes. I might just start doing it by way of links to previous threads and previous posts, though, as it does indeed grow tedious.
The only question I have is the lawsuit he was part of in 2008. I don't know if its been settled yet, so can we take all the other nonsense out of this thread?
I have good reason to believe it has, indeed, been settled but I haven't yet been able to re-locate some of the documents I'd like to review to be entirely sure. I'll keep working on it, though.
