> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 21:23:34 GMT
> From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_yeats.ucc.ie>
> Subject: GTA questionables.
>
> Sounds like you're 'refuting' an argument I didn't employ. (Not that's
> isn't Standard Rhetorical Technique #3 around here.) We're not talking
> about just _any_ sort of 'investment', with "this isn't an investment"
> fine print. To get concrete once again, what I'm suggesting, in
> general terms, are on-going benefits, at all (or at least more of), the
> "levels". Y'know, just like "Hero" already has. Unless the scheme
> is _already_ an illegal Investmentalike, I don't see why one would
> assert, claim, imply or indeed have any concerns that it would become
> illegal if there were _some sort of_ on-ongoing benefits at other levels.
Alex and I have reached the same conclusions even though we're sitting on
opposite sides on the fence (and the ocean? I'm going on your previous use of
the word "rubbished" here :)...) with every other facet of the plan...which
implies to me a strong possibility that this conclusion has some validity
attached to it :)...
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #458