Already a thread on this but since Grusso7 wants to avoid the fact that he is wrong in that thread I'll post here as well. It relates to his post in the other drywest thread. But in this post he gives one web link that is neither DOI or FEMA website (required in the prop), and the DOI website he does refer to does not indicate anywhere that a SOE has been declared anywhere (required in the prop), it does talk about the drought conditions in California, and how bad they are (which no one disputes, and no one disputes that California has declared a SOE), but the DOI and / or FEMA neither indicates a drought related SOE.

The following is from the DRYWEST goes long thread.

Grusso7 Reread the prop statement and the arguments above. No one has disputed that the Governor has declared a state of emergency. no one disputes that California is in dire condition due to a drought. What is disputed and is the most import fact is that neither DOI or FEMA has listed anywhere on their web sites (that people have reported) that a SOE has been declared. The two links you gave although informative are from neither the DOI or FEMA, which is the criteria for payout. The president could announce it on TV that there is a declared SOE in California, and this stock can not pay out until such information is posted on the DOI or FEMA websites.And I agree it doesn't have to be in the declared emergencies data base, but it does need to appear on their website. To make it easier here is the payout statement:

"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."

See it very specifically says Fema and/ or DOI websites, not the governors website, not some news website.

The head of FEMA himself could say that there is a declared SOE in California related to drought, and that would not cause this stock to pay off, until it is posted on FEMA or DOI's website.

Now that said I would not be surprised if FEMA does declare the drought situation in California a SOE at some point in the near future, or at least reports it that way. but it hasn't happened yet.

Here is a link to the FEMA site containing a drought update that contains the words "On Feb 27, the Governor of California declared a State of Emergency due to current drought conditions."

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

Still, not sure if this satisfies the payout, though. It depends on the interpretation of "as posted on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or Department of the Interior websites." Is a simple mention sufficient, or is a more formal announcement required?

Bernburg I think you have a winner. I think the intent of the stock was actually to require a federal SOE, but that is not what is in the payout. I also think it was intended that for payout it would be posted in the declared emergencies DB, but again this was not what the payout statement says.

According to what the payout statement does say this link appears good, it is on FEMA's website and it indicates that California has declared a SOE. Figured it would be posted eventually.

"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."

It seems evident that the emergency must be declared and the declaration POSTED on FEMA or DOI websites. Calif declared the emergency and it IS posted. It should pay long.

Posted to me means reconized and announced by FEMA or DOI's website not just listing what the governor said. FEMA or the DOI have to make the statement themselves at which point they will act upon it. Beleave me we will know when FEMA acts upon anything. A federal state of drought related emergency can not be declared because even though states such as California are in bad shape right now with the drought they are not bad off enough yet for that to happen. It has seldom happened in any other state in the past and the states that have had it in the past where way worse off then the situation in the west is now.

Teekar2620 we can only go by what the payout proposition actually states (not what we individually think was intended), posted has a number of definitions and since nothing in the payout indicates which meaning should be used, all are available. Had they meant announced or recognized they could have made the payout statement read that way. Your interpretation may have been what was intended (and I agree), however the way it is written the mere appearance or reporting that the Gov had declared a SOE on either a DOI or FEMA website meets the payout criteria as written.

There's a really strong reason built into the payoff for why this payoff claim shouldn't count, and why this "announcement" is not in the spirit of the prop.

Why was the payoff based on a posting to the DOI or FEMA pages? Why not make the payoff "if a drought-related emergency is announced in any state west of the Mississippi?"

Because the prop was written with the intent that it would be a FEDERAL declaration, that's why. Instead, we have a bunch of people clamoring for payoff because the drought emergency declaration was referred to in a WEATHER UPDATE.

I can understand paying off a prop because it was written in a way that allowed past developments to qualify; I can understand if a prop allows payoff in ways the background information didn't address; I'm all for paying off a poorly-written prop because the payoff line didn't indicate alternatives interpretations shouldn't apply.

But in this case the selection of the sites clearly indicates the intent. This wasn't meant to be an announcement that made the news, or passed a state legislature, or even went to the president for signature. This was meant to be a bona fide announcement by these organizations of a drought emergency.

There's no disputing any reasonable person would call the FEMA citation a "post"(not just the linguistic yahoos who want to count "anything on a web page" as such). This is a regularly updated page that gives public notice to threatening weather conditions nationwide. It qualifies as a public notice.

But why require the post on the DOI or FEMA pages, and not just a notice elsewhere?

Sure, the ham-headed thinking of someone who would name a thread "DRYWST IS DONE HALT AND PAY UP" would probably fail to see the significance of this requirement. Such an individual would also likely say "the contract says I only have to pay $100 a month. It doesn't say which month."

The payoff line indicates these sites because it intends it to be a federal declaration, not a passing reference on a weather update page, or another news reference buried somewhere in the crypts of these sites.

Paying off this prop on the basis of the FEMA citation or any of the others is not against the "spirit of the prop". It is, however completely against the spirit of THE PAYOUT LINE.

And the payout line is what we've been using as our yardstick.

Vulgarian: although I agree with you on what may have been the intent of the prop, it is not what the payout statement says, and the payout statement is all that really matters. The payout statement's purpose is to clarify the intent so that there is no need to second guess the intent. The payout statement is what matters and if it fails to meet the intent of the writers of the prop that is their fault, and not the fault of those who trade in accordance to the payout statement. If the intention of the prop writer was as you indicate they could have indicated that the SOE had to be a federal SOE, and that it had to be announced on FEMA as a declared SOE and be included in their emergency database. But they choose to use posted and not specify that it had to be a federal SOE, so the payout statement as written has been met, and what is written is all that matters, otherwise no payout statement has any validity.

I am surprized to see that, with all the opinions here and the obvious problem with the interpretation of the prop, the admins don't care to clarify. This is obviously the purest case when the formula is not clear. And they just leave us to guess. I don't think it is right. Sorry about being critical, but I really think that it is simply not right.

Trust me, the administrators have there hands full with other issues right now. I am not allowed to clarify more beyond that, but I have had a little email correspondence with Taylor over some stuff taking place that I would consider to be more urgent. IMO I think she just needs a couple more employees to help out with the forums, but I just do not think it is in there budget at this time. I am sure she will comment on this as soon as she has time, or just send her and email and I am willing to bet if you ask nicely you will get your answer in a day or so. That is what I do when I need clarification.

I also think everyone here has a valid argument, and it seems the purpose of the prop has been met, but not to an extent that it meets all of the requirements of the payout statement yet. I also know do to the high amounts of rain nation wide lately expect an delay on this type of federal announcement.

Also like to add, I lived in Las Vegas, allowing me first hand knowledge of the water issues there, from 2002-2008 and there has always been talk of water shortages the entire time I was out there. Just look up some of the stories about how low Lake Mead is, you can see it in any recent picture of the Hover Dam, and it may clarify exactly how long this has been going on. There were strict water conservation rules in place the whole time I was out there. You were only allowed to water you lawn certain days of the week and certain times depending on what part of the city you lived in, and washing you car at you house was prohibited pretty much the whole time I was out there.

I am not saying these are all directly related, but just shows how long this has been going on without the Federal Government ever getting involved as far as I know or. As far as I know it was always controlled on a state level, which is why I really expect this Prop to close SHORT IMO. I am not saying I am right, but this is a little insight on what I know, and I hope it helps some of you.

roygbiv:
I was not wrong on the other thread and neither was huntjorg who uncover the story. The only wrong person here was you in not wanting to check the links on your own.
There is no reason for the hold on this this stock is done since last week!!!
The payout stament has been meet. A those that profess the spirit of the law they can go fudge themselves. All it matters is that the conditions of the payout statement has been meet.

Why does it smell so bad in here??? It is that vulgarian words are full of B.S.??? Take a hike dude. On one prop you claimed for the pay out statement and in another for the spirit of the law. People are not that stupid we can really see you for what you are: "vulgarian the BIG LIAR". At least make your self a favor and stay on one side instead of switching back and forth on what is convenient to you.

Just to be clear for everyone: the payout statement says that the announcement needs to be posted on the FEMA or Dept. of the Interior sites-- these orgs do not need to make the announcement... and not to give away the ending you're all clearly already onto, but an announcement has been made and posted.

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

So, do with that what you will!

I'm on it from this end.

Thanks! Lemme know if you have questions.

t

Grusso7 your links were not the one that pushed it over, yours were incorrect and failed to meet the payout statement, as did huntjorg. Once berneburg found one that met the payout statement (not just what part of it, but all of it) I acknowledged as much and fought just as hard for it. I checked out your links and none met the criteria (and you were never able to show where in those links that they both came from either a DOI or FEMA website, and showed a SOE, (asking for emergency assistance under the water reclamation act is not a SOE). The only link that met the criteria was berneburg's. And until he posted that link there was nothing to support halting or paying out this stock.

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

So what are people trying to say, is the prop long or short?
All of these long winded replies are hard to understand, please dumb it down... LOL.

The prop as written is short.

Unfortunately, PopSci has been convinced to overlook the way it was written, in favor of a popular interpretation.

Therefore I expect they will close the stock long. Probably today.

ejcassel

First, I will admit I was wrong in my earlier posts, and that this should close LONG. I was wrong, and I apologize, but I somehow was not thinking that a State announced emergency would be a FEMA related issue, but that was a mistake. Of course this is a FEMA and DOI issue, it always starts on the state level. I guess I lived in that area to long and just got used to all the water issues always going on. Nevada and California was always bickering over water rights, but I retract my earlier statement and say this should close LONG because of the post on the FEMA site.

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.

We argued this out a long time ago. I've dealt with several delcared disasters personally. This is how it works, at least in the U.S., how it works overseas is beyond my comprehension and I've went through most of the ICS training they have. (ICS = Incident command system)

The local agency affected contacts their state officials and asks for a declaration of an emergency. The groups involved at this level vary from state to state and the type of problem you are dealing with. Then the state appeals to the Federal government for assistance. If the State doesn't declare and emergency FEMA will not, and I believe, can not get involved.

Once the emergency is declared FEMA then decides if it is something they are going to get involved with. There are loss levels that have to be met and many many hoops you have to jump through. (took me a year and a half to finish up after the last one)

Soooo

States declare the emergency, not the Feds, the feds just decide if they are going to help. Unless I suppose Federal lands are involved, and probably anything terrorist related I've never ran into that personally.

The crux of the matter seems to be IS vs AS.

Sorry, "as posted" fits the current situation because it does not say "as posted by fema/doi" it just means that the emergency had to be drought related as posted on fema/doi. In this case what they were shooting for was a declaration of emergency for drought it was never specified who declared it. I never did read that this meant Fema or DOI had to declare the emergency, that just isn't the way the system works. Only that they picked up on the declaration and posted the details on their site.

roygbiv:
DOI = Department of Interior and is all over the page
and on the link that I repeat on top from the previous thread and it does fullfill the pay out statement. Just read again.

http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/022709.html

{"as posted on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and/or Department of the Interior websites by December 31, 2009."

"and or means" it can just be only one be one of these agencys that post the news.}

By the way this link was provided by vulgarian and not me. Read the previous tread I just repeat it so the administration can also see it after I posted my message.

The only links that I provided were these:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-05-092.asp

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a28/press/20090227AD28PR02.htm

Which were the ones to prove that the state of emergency was declared in california which you were counteraguing against huntjorg.

Hey Kubie, in that last paragraph you wrote, isn't that pretty much what I just said. That the "AS" was acceptable here because of the use of the word "ON" instead of "BY"??? I just was not sure who your post is directed too, considering if you read mine I just made the exact same point. You can clearly see the quotation marks in my post when I quoted ejcassel, just do not want you to think that that was my point but instead a quote, and was commenting on what he said about the as being the reason it should close short.

I was just trying to clarify if this post was intended for him, or if you did not read my post all the way or correctly? I agree with what you said, but just think it is a little repetative to say the same thing twice or just repeat what someone else said.

As for ejcassel, seems he realized the error of his ways and just has not commented yet, really no need to anyway.

Hey EJ,

Just want to be clear-- this prop closed due to the language in the statement, not peer pressure or anything else. I saw the info on the FEMA site, and that met the criteria.

The PopSci-bashing needs to stop. Specific suggestions and questions are always welcome. This prop was not an ambiguous one. The payout statement is very clear.

Thanks,

Taylor
PopSci.com

Grusso7:

No where in the link http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/022709.html is the term State of Emergency used. So closing on this link would have been wrong. And the other two links don't count because they are neither DOI or FEMS websites. Its really really simple Bernebug's was the only site that met all the criteria in the payout statement It indicated that a SOE had been declared for drought in California, and was on a FEMA web site. So closing when the criteria had not been met like you wanted was wrong. Berneburg was diligent enough to find a web posting that actually allowed this to close which either it has now closed or will soon.

Hey Taylor, when is it going to Halt??? It is still active and being traded as far as I can tell.

Taylor:

My apologies for any "PopSci" bashing. But nothing changes the fact that FEMA has a search section where you can look up the times they've acknowledged a "State of Emergency" for drought, and the last time California is in that search is 1977.

Also, the postings in the DRYWST threads after mine show that the difference between when info "is" posted on a site, verses when info is obtained "as" posted on a site, is lost on those who aren't English majors. It's unfortunate, since they are only two-letter words.

Regardless, I once said to you in chat that I was staying away from the forums because I do not like "Interpretive English", and I probably should have held myself to that. Going forward I shall. My only remaining decision is whether or not this type of thing will drive me away from PPX, as it has so many before me.

ejcassel

Ejcassel and nothing can change the fact that nothing in the payout statement requires that the SOE be listed in the search section at FEMA (also acceptable was a DOI website and they don't have a listing like FEMA).

As for "is" and "as" show us that your definition is the only one. I have found none that indicates that in using "as" here that that means it has to be an announcement from(FEMA or DOI).

Ejcassel- If you have a problem with the way I explained how you were wrong in my post please explain to me. I love how you pretend not to hear what REASONABLE stuff is said too you but continue your senseless chatter in the wind about how your right but just refuse to acknowledge anyone's point as it may impact yours negatively and continue to try and plead your case to PS even though we all know you have no such case and are simply wrong..... Are you a English major? Did you ever think that do to the SOE being so new that the FEMA site has just not updated its search section yet? What makes you so convinced that you are right? How much money did you lose on this cause I can see as you fighting for it that you are losing something?

No offense, but if you are, and this is how I use my "Interpretive English" skill, really so desperate to try and convince the Payout in your favor over such a word like "as" or "is" it appears that you are just reaching for anything to hold onto and only came up with a slim, tiny, thread that will not hold your weight and is about to break. Face it, this is LONG, and you lost. Just deal with it and move on to the next Prop, or can you just not stand being WRONG that much!!!