DRYWST short

Scott78 and others,
What is the problem with people responding inside ALREADY CREATED threads instead of creating new ones? I would like to hear your reasoning for this.

It is not like there are at least 4 other threads on this prop. I am sure one or two more will help clarify the whole thing.

Thank you for your response.

Scott78 show me where in the payout statement it says that FEMA or DOI has to declare, it only says posted on one/ or both websites, which has been done.

Here is the payout statement as written:

"This proposition will pay out at POP$100 per share if a drought-related state of emergency is declared in any state west of the Mississippi River as posted on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or Department of the Interior websites by December 31, 2009."

and Berneburg

http://www.fema.gov/emergency/reports/2009/nat022809.shtm

which fully meets the payout statement as written, now vulgarian has put forth the argument that this is not what was intended, and I agree that it is not what the writer most likely intended. However the payout statement's purpose is to concisely indicate under what conditions the stock will payout, there should be no second guessing on what its intent was, the payout statement is the intent, if its worded poorly so be it, it should pay only as worded, and this payout statement has been met.

frostyfam they start new threads because they don't want any other opinion than theirs to be represented, especially when their argument has already been shown to be wrong.

I know, but I want them to say it.

Roy-- you're correct on this-- the prop payout statement just says emergency must be declared and this must be posted on those sites:

DRYWST 79.25 rising :: 2010-01-01 :: This proposition will pay out atPOP$100 per share if a drought-related state of emergency is declared in any state west of theMississippi River as posted on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or Department of the Interior websites by December 31, 2009.

Check this out: www.fema.gov/emergency/reports/2009/nat022809.shtm

I'm all over this today.

Thanks!

t

My apologies for the duplicate posting, but here is my comment from the other DRYWST thread. I know, I haven't posted in months and now twice in one day, but I'd like to finish the day without feeling dirty.
--------------------------------

I am saddened by two things.

1) I find myself on the same side of something as Vulgarian.

2) I find that all these months later, the meaning of words in English still don't matter to PopSci.

The payout criteria used the word "as" not the word "is".

If the payout criteria had said that a state of emergency be declared and "is" posted on the FEMA site, then yes, it should be closing long.

What the criteria actually says is that a state of emergency be declared "as" posted on the site, which indicates that it would need to be a declaration by FEMA, which it's not.

You can do searches on the FEMA site for states of emergency for drought that FEMA has declared, the last one was in 2007 in Indonesia. The last one they declared in California was in 1977.

Once again, PopSci will use peer pressure and the results of public education to change the meaning of what was written.

ejcassel

ejcassel, Hate to tell you this, but you are wrong. I think you are tying to guilt them into leaning your way with your statement:

"2) I find that all these months later, the meaning of words in English still don't matter to PopSci."

I want you to look at one very important word that, in my mind, completely contradicts your point you are trying to make. That is the word ON, part of the Payout Statement you are trying to quote says:
"as posted ON the Federal Emergency....."
ON is the key word here, it makes this right to close LONG and all conditions of the payout met. In order for it to not be met, and to stay open, they would of need to use the word BY instead of ON.
I understand your reasoning, but this would only had been true it the Payout Statement read:
"as posted BY the Federal Emergency....."

It does not read this way at all. If it was stated this way, then sure, I would be all over supporting what you are saying, but since is does not. I believe it to be pretty clear to be a LONG the way it is and should HALT right away.