6 ms·

I clearly struck a nerve, since you wouldn't just post a longer version of 'no' and not support your argument otherwise.

• SilasX 11y ago
  I explained how, if you were correct, it would have a less probable implication. (That's how a lot of reasoning works: "if you were correct about oxygen absorption spectra, the sky shouldn't be blue.") Here, the improbable implication of your claim that I highlighted is that businesses are normally allowed n-year cutoffs (for some value of n) for discounted future liabilities. It was not simply a reassertion. If you need another reason your claim is implausible, it would suggest that, should a business issue a zero coupon bond with 76-year maturity, it should log that as an increase in book value (with corresponding tax liability). But obviously a loan should not itself increase tax liability!
  • zardgiv 11y ago
    Perhaps if you made your point without sarcasm, you'd be able to more clearly express yourself. But here we are. Regardless, it's impressive that you can't handle being corrected. I get that you think you're generally the smartest person in the room, but sometimes you'll be wrong. Calm down, take a step back, and think critically in the future (especially if you think you've made a logical point.)