^^ this was exactly my point when I said that DF had killed any buzz she generated by announcing this series coupled with the claim that she had the goods on Howard and implied he would regret ducking her interview. We live in an information right now world and if she wasn't ready to report everything she should have waited until she was to announce this series of articles. As it is now, she has lost probably half her audience at least due to lack of new info and waiting so long between articles.

It also makes her original claims look pretty weak. If you're going to say that the final parts are really juicy and the first parts are just setting up context - one would assume you have a pretty good idea of what's in each part.

im sure printing what we all suspect would be easy. but sticking to facts is alot harder. i still will be in her reading her blogs. i mean some people actually believe howard backed out because of strain on family.

Part 6 is online:

http://diamondflushpoker.com/2012/10...files-part-vi/

^^^
ty

Things are finally getting more interesting, at least .

I think her analysis of the Ivey lawsuit is offbase. Generally speaking, breach of contract claims are limited to the terms of a contract. Emotional distress, humiliation, etc. are tort damages. Where contractual damages are quantifiable, tort damages are determined by a jury and are open ended. Thus, when Plaintiff lawyers file a contractual claim, they always try to include some tort claims, even if they are far-fetched, in order to not be limited in damages in front of a jury.

More interesting how? HL already threw Ivey under the bus. So she is late there. Where is the "good stuff" on Howard? I am so unimpressed its not even funny. This whole series is garbage and is literally just one person's view based on " several sources" which will never be named apparently. NOT TO MENTION SHE IS ANONYMOUS HERSELF.

Phil Ivey already threw himslelf under the bus with that crazy law suit.

That's fine if you want to go after Ivey. You won't get an argument from me there. But to come out publicly and act as if Howard purposely ducked your interview because he knew you were really going to " get him" and then report absolutely nothing of substance is a joke. Matter of fact, this last installment seems to only bolster HL's assertion that ivey's lawsuit was frivolous and self serving. Howard already said that! In fact he used it as one of his main arguments to show why a deal wasn't made sooner. DF made public statements implying that she was going to serve Howard up on a platter and then she proceeded to corroborate Lederer's story about Ivey. Wtf?!?!

Except to Howard, she told him.

In this part he is looking pretty good.
It confirms he really put the players' interest first and his version of the PI lawsuit.

All these stories about investors shouldn't come as a surprise, many tried their own coup and in the end it was all about power and money. HL had more incentive to close a deal fast than most other members, because his name was being dragged through the mud every day.

nope

it makes the other shareholders and especially the board looking as bad as him. that´s a huge difference. about howards priorities it think that you are speculating.

Howard steppin up and getting his house appraised first. Nice!

I felt like in this section, DF misinterprets HL's statement. It seemed clear to me at the time of the interview that he was talking about taking ownership of the problem as opposed to assigning blame. You see this sort of tension a lot in the business world, where when something goes wrong, there is always a type of person who is so overly focused on assigning blame and meting out punishment that it distracts from the often more productive activites of assessing damages and discovering solutions.

Her final statement may very well be true and I'm not trying to argue anything beyond what I've said above (i.e., I'm not sure that keeping Ray on was a good decision, etc). I do think she's taking an overly literal view of his statements in this spot and finds a contradiction that doesn't necessarily exist.

In any event, it's a small point. I just think it highlights an interesting dynamic in human behavior.

One of the first and most important steps in problem solving is identifying the problem. Here's a simple example of why it's so important. A friend of mine noticed some paint peeling in his upstairs bathroom. He noticed it, scraped the paint and repainted. A few weeks later same thing happened. He decided to try a different paint. Scraped, painted. A few weeks later he was scraping, spackling and repainting with a more expensive paint. A few weeks later when the peeling happened again he asked me if I knew of a good bathroom paint that won't peel. After describing how many times he repainted in the past few months I knew there was something else going on. One day when it was raining I took a peek up in his attic and saw there was a leak around his vent stack that was dripping on the drywall above where the paint kept peeling. He got the leak fixed and the paint stopped peeling. Had he stopped to look at what the cause of the problem was he could have resolved the problem sooner, saved the hassle of repainting multiple times and not have to deal with the mold situation that developed.

In the case of FTP it was important to determine why the company had the problems it had. It seems that a big part of the problem was due to incompetent management. If that's the case then you don't want the same people that did such a poor job of running the company being in charge of the disaster recovery.