"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
You cannot portray yourself as the most
obnoxious person on the planet - and then expect sympathy because you have
some, unidentified, illness.

No one expects sympathy. I don't have IBS or UC. But using diseases as a
trolling element or insult just isn't my bag.
Sorry.

Have we finally discovered depths of bad taste to which Bobsprit will not
descend??? I don't think so!

So what happens to you when you "dissappear" from the ng? Do you become a
cripple?


Real sailors don't whine about medical conditions. In fact, this ng has a
shining example to all of us.


Regards


Donal
--

It's one of the leading causes of workplace absense.


Figures.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
You're talking about anecdotal
evidence vs. actual reliable data.

Irritable bowel syndrome is an epidemic in the United States. More than 5%
of
the population is afflicted by "idiopathic" (cause unknown) bowel
discomfort,
urgency, and diarrhea type symptoms. IBS can progress to colitis, but is
different in that colonoscopy finds no obvious pathological changes in the
bowel.

Honestly, Bob, you really talk some sh*te.



Regards


Donal
--

On 13 Nov 2003 09:52:53 GMT, (SkitchNYC) wrote:


Bwahahahahaha OK, joker. Your investment company pays you a wage? What a
laugh. You better try again, cause that ain't gonna work

Really?
Why wouldn't any company pay its employees?

Cause there are a million better ways to get gains or income out and cause
you're gonna turn capital gains into personal income that way - not too smart.


Look, even if you had this setup (which you do not), it would be
about the most ass-backwards way to hold assets, particularly
income-producing
ones as you describe them
Really, maybe yoou should take a look at how company taxes work in Oz
after all that's where I live.

It is certainly the case in the US, and according
to my AAR friends it is in Oz also

AAR? Some accountancy mob?
They don't know **** about Oz practice...neither do I actually, I just
pay my accountancy firm a lot of money every year to save me a lot
more.

The fact that you don't even know who AAR is or would say that "they don't know
**** about Oz" tells all. They are the biggest Oz law firm and the leading tax
advisor there and the firm consisting of some of my best friends (see, all
Ozzies are not assholes).

Maybe you could tell me about tax liability in France and Greece
as well.

And, to top it off, you still haven't
explained why you or Boobs could gain any advantage by having an individual
(like a wife) hold assets. Please get back to the question at hand (but
thanks
for the laugh anyway).

You get sidetracked easily don't you?

No, but I do tire of your saying so in an attempt to avoid an issue.

But I would assume that asset protection is universal as is tax
minimization.

True, but not nearly as important, unless you are planning to go bankrupt.

Hope you can laugh at your inadequacy as much as I'm laughing at them

Ouch, that one really hurt - whatever it meant.

On top of
that, the agreement may not be enforceable - leaving you high and dry. Just
don't get divorced, or fix it first.

Our marriage agreement is quite standard and it was well researched. It
overides titles, deeds and even "gifts."

Sure, they can do that, a contract to transfer a deed overrides it. But
consider that in the legal world a contract is one of the weaker forms of
indicia of asset ownership. That means that you may not win if it is
contested. Just a little advice for ya, that's all.

The boat and the next boat are not
in
my name due to insurance issues that are specific to me.

OK, whatever man. Maintain the mystery.


If we ever divorced I
wouldn't want this boat...or the next one anyway.

That is either a very romantic notion, ie, you'd be too distraught to worry
about a material thing like a boat. Or, it is a very sinister notion, as in
you would expect so much of Suzanne's assets that you could get a great boat.
I wonder which one it is.

Bwahahahahaha OK, joker. Your investment company pays you a wage? What a
laugh. You better try again, cause that ain't gonna work.

Skitchy....seems to me that it IS working.

It seems like it is working?. Ok, I guess that ends it. He hasn't even
explained why he did it. Sounds like he paid money to set up a bunch of
corporations when he doesn't even know why.

Why are you so frustrated when
others have found a viable system, even if unconventional?

No frustration. Its just if I am having a hard day, its fun to kick Ozzie's
pretend knowledge around a little. BTW his system is not unconventional at all
- just not worthwhile.

why you or Boobs could gain any advantage by having an individual
(like a wife) hold assets. Please get back to the question at hand (but
thanks
for the laugh anyway).

In my case it had to do with insurance. Taxes were a minimal factor. In the
case of the 34XL, it's about financing. My father's credit union is 0%
interest
along with other nice terms.

Well, at least put it in both your names. The lender doesn't care if more than
one person own it, as long as the one with the deep pockets is on there.

If it all falls down I am not personally liable providing I have not
breached my duties as a director. ie trading when insolvent.
Good eh?

Without knowing the specifics, Skitchy is ****ing into the wind suggesting
any
part of your situation is not "proper."

Proper has nothing to do with it, Bob. His statement above is correct, except
he fails to note that he would also be personable liable if the corporate shell
is a mere instrumentality of his, which it appears to be. This ain't **** into
the wind, rather **** on a stupid ownership structure.

It's frustration on his part, plane and simple. There are some people in this
world who are driven mad by the happiness of others. Neal, Skitchy, Binary
Jane
and Scotty are clear examples.

Its easy to say this when there is nothing else to say. Boobs, Oz is an idiot,
but I was just trying to give you straight up advice.

Wasn't hard to figure out.


It wasn't hard to figure out that putting the boat in your wife's name would
allow you to borrow under your father's credit union? OK, if you say so.

We're not talking about UC. I have a friend who has that
also. We're talking about IBS, which is completely different
and has nothing to do with UC. I'm also aware of the drug
you allude to. The study was conducted with mostly women,
and as yet is not approved for men by the FDA. It is not
generally covered by insurance because of the lack of approval.
You're right, it's expensive. IBS can be helped with regular
antibiotics, but not complete solved with them for most people.
UC is a different story entirely. If you have that or know someone
who has, I pity you. It is certainly life-threatening.

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
You are completely and totally wrong. alt.whatever has
nothing to do with reality. You're talking about anecdotal
evidence vs. actual reliable data.

I have been dealing with UC for 22 years. I'm quite informed on the
subject,
including familial link data, cancer statistics and new treatments,
including
the Austrialian anti-biotic cocktail that was tested with some success on
UC
patients. Because of a sad occurence I know quite a bit about the
realities and
devestating effects of these diseases.
I have no wish to debate them tit-for-tat in this forum. Should you want
to
know more, e-mail me directly. I also have info on a new med released last
year
that is having some success for IBS and UC, though it's expensive.

RB