From: bobsarv@microsoft.com (Bob Sarver)
Subject: Re: What is "Sexual Orientation"?
Date: 06 Oct 92 22:02:14 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.


(me)
    >No; sorry. I worked in real estate financing (Washington
    >Mutual Savings Bank, Bellevue, Washington) before I entered
    >the software industry; there were no such "haunted house"
    >forms.
    >
    >You are wrong, and quite possibly a deliberate liar.

/(phil)
/Hate to tell you this old chap, but, shudder, *gasp*, REAL ESTATE LAWS
/DIFFER FROM STATE TO STATE.

Now it is *your* accusation that I am lying, and ignorant.  Obviously
you are wrong, of course; but it does show your ignorance of the subject 
matter.



(phil)
/This was one of the new forms, that, as my broker (note, broker) said
/was becoming very common in just about all the states. I had to
/state that I was disclosing all such conditions about the house and
/its reputation.

The form you are talking about is Form 17.  It is a general question&answer
form about the house.  Questions on it include: has anyone ever committed
suicide in the house, or have there been any crimes of violence on
the property.  

The original court case that I am referring to is one-of-a-kind; where
the judge presiding over the case actually entered the phrase "haunted
house" in the legal transcripts, making it the only officially recognized
haunted house in the nation.

You are truly pathetic.  Here, let's dissect what you ORIGINAL claim
was, and see how it compares against the information you offered in
defense:


    >>Secondly, real estate law has been dramatically
    >>affected by the last case. 
    >>A whole new set of forms exist
    >>that the seller must now fill out aimed explicitly at that
    >>very kind of case. 

Well, "dramatically affected" is about ten orders of magnitude too
strong a phrasing, especially since the only result is a Form 17 that
has to be filled out.  And considering that it is not a national change
in real estate practices.

And since my original point dealt with a one-of-a-kind haunted house,
and since Form 17 does not mention "ghosts", "haunted", or anything
else supernatural, I would have to say that not only have you failed
to prove your point, you have even failed to understand the subject
under discussion.



/(phil)
/Now, want to retract your namecalling?

What namecalling?  I said you were wrong (proven), and quite possibly
a deliberate liar (not certain; yet to be seen).



/(phil)
/Better yet, want to bet the form exists? Say, $100???
/Care to put your money where your mouth is?

I am aware of Form 17's existence.  It is not a "haunted house disclaimer";
you are once again incorrect.

However, since you committed the only real act of slander by saying 

    >>(phil)
    >>Not only are you dishonest, but very
    >>ignorant as well.

I will graciously accept a $100 restitution payment from you.


Care to put your money where your honor is?

Naw, I thought not.  

POSTSCRIPT:

If you want to argue real estate law, I'm sure there are appropriate
groups for it.  I will pass on it, though.  The original argument was
over civil rights; I am returning to that argument.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:49865 alt.rush-limbaugh:6678 alt.politics.bush:7932 alt.politics.clinton:8739 alt.politics.elections:15380 talk.abortion:40933 alt.sex:32111