Just as it is mine to question on occasion whether you have really made a point and whether or to what extent it may be valid; this is, of course, just as much anyone else's prerogative as it is mine and it would seem that I am not alone in questioning such matters.
Just as it is mine to question on occasion whether you have really raised a question and whether or to what extent it may be valid; this is, of course, just as much anyone else's prerogative as it is mine and it would seem that I am not alone in qustioning such matters.
I had neither expected you to do so nor suggested that you do so nor can I imagine any particular reason why you should do so.
It shouldn't be; it is not my notion but a fact evidenced by your own repeated assertions to that effect (and not only in respose to my own posts either).
Then I assume by respose, you are saying that I am in a state of freedom from worry, or a peace of mind when I read your posts?
Your "encouragement" notwithstanding, let me assure you (should you requires such assurance) that there is no need for that.
By "mistake" I assume you to mean "confuse" but, if my assumption here is correct, I do nothing of the kind, thank you.
Perhaps I had been over generous as well, in complimenting your English. Here is the definition of mistake from dictionary.com:
4. to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret.
You wrongly evaluated your opinion (that I feel almost everything is an attack to me) to be a fact. And of course, that statement is obviously false, as evidenced by the fact that of all the posters on pianostreet, the only ones that have attacked me are you, djealnla, stevebob (who has stopped and was nice enough to start answering my questions seriously) and thal (who has also stopped and was even nice enough to help me find transcriptions of Erlkonig, which I cannot thank him enough for).
That is a matter of opinion, not a fact (and please do not confuse the one with the other); you have written about being "attacked" by other posters here bseides me, but then you have also had the grace and honesty to admit to paranoia, so perhaps that is par for the coure.
Nor did I state that it was a fact; I said there was evidence; please read carefully and don't read what's not there. I should also accept and thank your compliment in that I have grace and am honest.
I don't; I look backwards at the days when several of them have already done just that. Have a look (for all that it is a far from pretty sight) at the sheer scale of both banker incompetence and banker bonuses and you will doubtless see for yourself; had such bankers not been so incompetent and paid themeselves fortunes for having done so, certain taxpayers would not be being held to ransom today in order to minimise that risk that the banks concerned fail altogether.
But what evidence is there that I am indeed unable to do this? That said, the phrase "legalised theft" is in common parlance and has been for years; that is because it occurs all too commonly.
If you are referring to the recent financial crisis, there are many factors involved, and I don't believe the blame could be put completely on the bankers. There is a lot more to the crisis than the common man would believe, or indeed comprehend. As a student wanting to do finance in the future, I can say that even after learning a little about it, I do not completely understand everything involved. Unless you tell me you can understand the concept of the Gaussian Copula, and how it was used in determining pricing of collateralized debt obligations, I don't think we can go much further in this topic.
Needless to say, the bankers did not physically steal money from the bank; it would, however, be quite a funny sight to watch bankers sneak into the banks after hours (Mind you, a typical analyst works from 8am to 1am, with the occasional all-nighter at least once a month, so there isn't a lot of time for "after hours") and attempt to steal from the investment banks, which really don't carry cash in the first place.
It was not my purpose, nor do I assume that it would make by writing look more anything in particular - but then you should be more careful in your reference to "made up words", since all words have been made up at some point.
I did not assume that per se; I merely drew attention to your having omitted to mention the others.
Whatever you "would like", I assume that this is an opinion rather than a fact and that you either know or are at least learning the difference between the two.
Best,
Alistair
Indeed, I shall say a word that is non-existant in the English language instead. Whether you have assumed "that" or not is none of my business, I merely stated that it was not my duty to correct all of your mistakes.
Whatever you "would like", I assume that this is an opinion rather than a fact and that you either know or are at least learning the difference between the two.
Best,
Alistair
Whether it is an opinion or a fact, I won't say. But the fact is, you did miss out on correcting some of your errors, when you thought you have corrected "all" of them. And I see that it is still left uncorrected.
Topic: What's on your mind now?