First this:
and now this
Dude, and this is after a hard on?
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 07/19/2002 11:14:21 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Flame war. |
Posted on 07/10/2002 11:04:03 AM PDT by SierraWasp
12:57PM Halliburton responds to Judicial Watch lawsuit (HAL) by Michael Baron Halliburton (HAL) is off 30 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $13.82, in midday action. The company is out with a press release responding to a lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C.-based legal watchdog group. The suit alleges fraudulent accounting practices at Halliburton took place during the period when current vice president Dick Cheney served as its chairman and CEO. Halliburton called the claims in the suit, "untrue, unsupported, and unfounded." The company continued: "We are working diligently with the SEC to resolve its questions regarding the company's accounting procedures. Halliburton has always followed and will continue to follow guidelines established by the SEC and GAAP, General Accepted Accounting Principles."
I believe I did say it needed FReeping. Altho, as deport said, it was already losing by the time I got there, and there weren't too many additional votes cast after the link was posted.
Point is, Larry should've waited til the poll CLOSED before putting up a press release based on the results....
And when the results changed, the HONEST thing to do would've been revise his press release...but who cares about HONESTY when your motives are pure? ;-)
First this:
and now this
Dude, and this is after a hard on?
GRIP reality.
L
Really? Let's see...
__________________________________________________
"Most likely because people like you were "Freeping" the poll."
What exactly are "people like you"? People that disagree with this lawsuit? So we shouldn't be allowed to vote?
_______________________________________________
"You can vote in these polls, but I just hope that the people at JW realize this when they view the results."
So you are saying that our vote should count for less, or be discounted because we don't happen to vote the way you or Larry would?
_______________________________________________
"I never said that, you can vote if you want to. The poll just is not accurate because of the number of "Freeps".
You have posted this theory several times even though several people have verified that we were only allowed to "casted" our vote once. No matter how many times you post it, it doesn't make it true.
_________________________________________________
""Second, do you REALLY think that OVER 1500 PEOPLE read this thread and scooted over there late last night just to make this poll look bad???"
"Yes."
Seriously, there were maybe 25-30 posters total on this thread. It's been well established that we could only "casted" our vote once. Next...
___________________________________________________
"Well, since that's not the case, let's go back to the original subject of someone on this thread deliberately posting the link to this poll in order to maliciously sway the results."
Now we're malicious because we dared to vote once in one of Larry's polls?
_________________________________________________
Signed,
A lazy, malicious, complaining derelict.
Honestly, thanks for being so honest, Amelia. :)
Well, that was honest!
Good-night.
Which corresponds well with the 26-30 additional votes recorded after the link was posted...including several "YES" votes, by the way.........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.