12 ms·

I do have rebuttals to many of them, and you can read them at http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhostage.pdf http://www.thinkcomputer.com/co

I do have rebuttals to many of them, and you can read them at http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhostage.pdf http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta.... This law is not a good example of regulation in the public interest. Think Computer Corporation isn't listed in the opposition column because I had no idea that there was a hearing scheduled for April 19, 2010 in Sacramento on the issue. Did you? It's pretty sad that you can buy a law for $20K. They only spent $3,600 in Virginia. Also, "waive" and "wave" mean different things.

jessedhillon 15y ago
It's pretty sad that you can buy a law for $20K. They only spent $3,600 in Virginia. They spent $0 on lobbying in 2007-2010: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=F21559&year=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientlbs.php?id=F21559&#38... Characterizing the political process as "buying a law" doesn't do anything for your argument. It's a silly reduction. I actually think your white paper is a very thorough and serious proposal -- your message comes through very clearly and it's a good example of a professional communication. Also, "waive" and "wave" mean different things. Apparently you have no argument left, but thanks for spellchecking mine. You seem to be unable to distinguish legitimate criticism of the tenor and delivery of your comment from opposition. Obviously I am not opposed to loosening money transmission laws. I just think you could communicate legitimate complaints in a positive, engaging tone instead of ranting, and then becoming defensive and petty when questioned about it. It was a while ago when I was looking into money transmission and I ultimately decided against it for other reasons.