Go down to 9.
October 9th, 2012
a. Dispositions of MOTIONS FOR SUMARRY JUDGEMENT is left to the decretion of the court, and such motions may or may not be addressed prior to trial.
Could the judge actually decline to answer defendants requset per this order? It does seem posible if there's any unresolved issues.
Hey dog... nope not a publisher or writer... a software guy... so I guess a language lawyer of sorts because syntax and conciseness matter. Same with the law, and when you're here on a MB asserting *fact* about interpretation of legal documents it's pretty important to look at that source. Like I said I wasn't trying to pick a fight but it just sounds silly to speak of Google trying to hide their financials, with the entire theory derived from a broken link in a MB post. It makes you think what else has been misinterpreted by the source, that's all. Maybe nothing, maybe I'm being paranoid but it's notable nonetheless. He has tons of posts over the past several months and he does seem intelligent and coherent but somewhat arrogant and easy to insult others. Arrogance and overconfidence is the quickest path to failure. Like I said I hope he's right and he sure sounds pretty sure of his analysis but if it were that cut and dried this stock might be much higher as people pile into it, which is clearly not happening now.
Looks to me like SF is a publisher or writer. His focus is always related to grammer, proper terms, and puctuation which all sounds really good but in the real world will eat someone up. Sometimes ghetto folks such as I know a thing or two, to, too...pick one and apply!
Umm... Assuming you're talking about the link to google in this post:
It's laughable that you would think that Google "noticed" some bump in traffic from you sharing that link. You could've posted that link everyday from Aug. 1 till now and Google wouldn't have noticed anything because you're getting at *most* 50 clicks out of that, and I'm being generous I'm sure. Anyway, there's a pretty simple answer to your "conspiracy theory" that Google is trying to hide a "secret"... the link is broken in your post because of the ) on the end. This is the big secret link right?
You *sound* like you know what you're talking about here but then you make really silly errors that make me wonder. The option and stock grant info you posted was wrong as I asked you about in another post. Anyway, not trying to pick a fight but information is only as good as its source. I do see that you're super active on stock boards, including this one going back to May and I believe that you believe in this case really strongly but I also don't buy your argument that it's a foregone conclusion that this is over for GOOG. Believe me I hope you're right. I hope you're right about the size of the settlement/award as well because yeah that will yield a price of $30/shr or so which would be unreal for many people on this board, including myself.
Thanks for linking this again, I remembered reading it back in early August and believed it well thought out.
Thanks also for all of your posts these last couple days, I find them educational and they help me follow up with my own DD. This has been quite a stock to get involved in.
Go down to this topic, you'll see my post and discussions in early Aug:
Well, who would have thought of that?!
I guess my calculation was viewed and copied around too many times and, the link was clicked too often as a result. And Google noticed - they want to hide the secret.