Quote:
Originally Posted by Advogado
To answer the first of your questions, if a letter ruling had been requested, that fact would have certainly been set forth in the Official Statement (i.e., prospectus) prepared in connection with the bond issue. Since that fact is not set forth, apparently a letter ruling was not requested. As to why it wasn't, I don't know. You would have to ask the Developer or guess. Or maybe some of the posters ("Morseiphiles"), who have been assuring everybody not to worry ("Close your eyes, count to ten, and the boogie man will go away"), can actually supply some worthwhile factual information relevant to the discussion.
As to your to your final question as to what could be wrong with the concept of the "right to know"? Again, I don't know. You will have to ask the Morseiphiles. They will certainly have the answer. They know everything about everything, most of them seem to live at their computers and post thousands of times on every conceivable subject, and they seem to think that the way to discuss an issue is by making personal attacks on those with whom they disagree. (Oops, I just realized that I have been provoked into doing the same thing. I think that I will leave the subject of the IRS investigation alone for awhile-- at least until I calm down or there is another development.)
|
So, congratulations on coining a new word, "Morseiphiles." So, inadvertently you have confirmed my suspicions. I assume that new word means "friends of the Morses" or maybe pro-Morse?
So I assume you are the opposite which means "enemies of Morses or maybe anti-Morse?
Well, at least you admit where you stand.