blaster
Well-Known Member
- May 23, 2011
- 3,471
- Boat Info
- 2010 sea ray 205 sport
F-250 CCLB 6.2 4x4 3.73 rear.
- Engines
- Mercruiser 4.3 mpi alpha 1.62
We will have to disagree regarding whether or not a spokesperson should have an understanding of what they are selling and who they represent.My analogies are "disingenuous"? Why? That means not sincere, or not candid. Why would you assume my different view from yours is either? I think the analogies are valid, that's why I gave them. If you think an analogy I used is invalid, please explain why, and I will consider your point(s).
I don't hold spokespeople accountable, because I don't consider them credible. I don't know people who make decisions based in any way on their appeals. I can't imagine who would. Selleck is not a financial planner, advisor, mortgage broker, or expert on the matter in any way. Spokespeople are almost never qualified in what they are paid to promote. I could hate them all for it, or I could just ignore them when they give their paid for opinions. I like to hand out as little hate as possible, so I generally choose the latter. I don't give a rip about Tom Selleck. If he broke the law, I hope he will be prosecuted. Beyond that, he will not influence any of my financial decisions.
Regarding my use of the word disingenuous, I interpreted your comparisons as apples to oranges. In doing so the point I was making was twisted in a very narrow way. There are many unforeseen activities within a corporation which may be beyond the scope of performing due diligence in evaluating the culture and mission of a company.
Reverse mortgages are a known predatory practice and seldom end favorably for the client. I see reverse mortgages in the same light as JG Wentworth buying out annuities and structured settlements from the disabled and elderly. Just because something is legal does not make it moral.
Tom Selleck made an immoral choice and to defend that choice further normalizes immorality.