Posted by Hal Roark on July 02, 2003 at 08:45:39:
nt
Reed v You know who… - Posted by Ben (NJ)
Posted by Ben (NJ) on June 30, 2003 at 11:30:05:
I hadn’t checked Reed’s site in months but just dropped by and he has all new updates about “the” lawsuit. He located the plaintiff’s stepmother and interviewed her, he even went looking for his father’s tombstone! As I said before, Reed if you ever get mad at me, at least give me a chance to apologize! LOL!!
When it’s done and over with… - Posted by Houserookie
Posted by Houserookie on July 01, 2003 at 18:30:15:
I hope JTR has some money left to start a new life. If I were him I’d make sure every penny I have is tucked away.
I am not a fan of RW but JTR is really digging his own grave.
Cheerz,
Re: Reed v You know who… - Posted by GL - ON
Posted by GL - ON on July 01, 2003 at 08:19:50:
It is interesting to me that neither of these busy busy people has done a real estate deal in 20 years, and the ones they did do were flops.
Re: Reed v You know who… - Posted by Bronchick
Posted by Bronchick on June 30, 2003 at 17:07:17:
Whatever you think about RW, I think that what JTR is doing shows what kind of person he is. Some of the “dirt” he has dug up is relevant, and a lot of it is, “who cares - what does that have to do with real estate investing?” The guy is obviously spending most of his day obsessed with RW, sitting in his basement at his computer typing about this useless drivel.
At the same time, RW is probably hiring a team of attorneys to handle the case while he goes about his life. Anyone who would go “pro se” on a major lawsuit like this is a nut.
This reminds me of Ross Perot, who simply refused to listen to the advice of professional political consultants. Perot thought he was smarter than these professionals and he would just tell the story with his little pie charts and graphs. Now, Ross Perot is remembered as that “little nut” rather than a serious political factor.
2 skunks - Posted by GL - ON
Posted by GL - ON on June 30, 2003 at 16:51:14:
Nothing more fun to watch than 2 skunks in a p*ssing contest LOL.
Re: Reed v You know who… - Posted by Mark (SDCA)
Posted by Mark (SDCA) on June 30, 2003 at 15:08:28:
Beautiful. 
I havent been there in at least a year. Plenty of work time reading for me. lol.
Re: Reed v You know who… - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on June 30, 2003 at 14:56:23:
Shows how much I stay in touch with the guru gossip columns. I just went over there and did some reading.
WOW.
All I can say is … Mr. Reed is very, very thorough.
RL
Re: Reed v You know who… - Posted by Kristine-CA
Posted by Kristine-CA on June 30, 2003 at 12:34:54:
Ben: I do a fair amount of research into people’s past in order to solve title issues for abandoned property. But Reed takes the cake. That stuff about whether you-know-who lived in NJ or NY…whether they lived in NJ five years instead of six. Surely the man has better things to do. I already feel guilty having spent five minutes reading that stuff.
Sincerely, Kristine
You standards are too high… - Posted by Hal Roark
Posted by Hal Roark on July 01, 2003 at 18:15:14:
You actually want your teachers to have relevant experience in the trenches? Isn’t “theory” good enuf?
Sheesh. You are tough. 
Hal
Re: Reed v You know who… - Posted by StayingAnon
Posted by StayingAnon on July 01, 2003 at 24:46:26:
With the preface that your post sounds to me quite a bit like an expression of personal dislike as opposed to objective analysis:
I seem to recall that the site owners here had a difference of opinion(with threat of litigation) with “he who shall remain nameless”, and the site owners chose to restrict opinions and discussion regarding the nameless one. That’s a business decision, I respect and understand that.
JTR appears to have decided that he can stand alone against “the nameless one and his minions”. If nothing else, I’d think you’d at least acknowledge the man has cojones.
I wish JTR well in his battle, and wish you well in your ventures, this wasn’t intended as a slam, just an observation.
Re: Reed v You know who… - Posted by yshNJ
Posted by yshNJ on June 30, 2003 at 14:20:27:
Are we talking about Lord Voldemort here?
Just kidding and have a nice day.
Re: if he spent - Posted by jay
Posted by jay on June 30, 2003 at 13:01:13:
that time looking for DEALS - imagine how much
better off he would be!
Not me… Them. - Posted by GL - ON
Posted by GL - ON on July 01, 2003 at 19:52:43:
Both Mr. Harvard and Mr. Jail are very contemptuous of “gurus” who don’t practice what they preach, i.e. teach real estate investing without investing themselves.
By the way I was a little harsh when I said neither has done a deal in 20 years. In at least one case, it’s closer to 10 years.
Re: You standards are too high… - Posted by William Bronchick
Posted by William Bronchick on July 01, 2003 at 19:15:01:
You’ll love this one, Hal. Reed actually argues on his website that NOT doing deals anymore makes his advice better because there’s no “conflict of interest” (making the financial advisor analogy).
That logic says it all…