Welcome to the Gallery – a place where you'll find hope and strength through the healing power of art and the universal reach of technology –
a place where you can
Connect, Create, and Thrive!
Interested in partnering with us?
Click here to find out how!
Displaying (4) Comments | Comment on this piece | Report objectionable art
Does anyone know what hapneps to negative home equity situations during divorces in Washington state these days? I keep hearing of how negative equity is complicating divorces, but I don't really understand the nuts and bolts of it.Do the divorcing parties have to split the negative equity down the middle? Is it apportioned based on what percentage of ownership each party is considered to have (i.e. who made the down-payment, the percentage of the mortgage payments each party covered)?What about the case where one party really didn't make any financial contribution (e.g. a home-maker)? Would that party be saddled with substantial negative equity debts (owed to their ex) if their over-all asset situation was in a significant under-water situation?For the record, I am renting (as most people on this site already know), so this certainly isn't something that concerns me directly. It is just something I have been wondering about as I continue to see larger numbers of homes go under-water. Rate this comment: 0 0
By: | Mar 12, 2014 | Report Comment
Well, so far this year in the 12 and under league, I've seen sleammd balls not called as technicals, serious moving screens not called, kids pushed down with no intentional fouls (or fouls at all) called I know some call traveling, double dribbling, 3 seconds, etc. more or less than others and I don't have as much of an issue with that that's the preference of the officials. But it's a damn basketball game, not a hockey match. By the end it's like rollerball (the old James Caan movie) or an ultimate fighting match. Some are okay, but that seems to be the exception instead of the norm, I'm afraid.
By: | Oct 17, 2012 | Report Comment
. I just saw enough crap to know Ryan was being dumb. Yeah there was some silly stuff where McI and Ryan were trnyig to blame issues on their paper with a direction they think ES steered it. I fastened on that quickly as did you and ES, and of course it is sill, those guys are responsible for their published work, not the reviewer. McI has a bad habit of that sillines with previous papers. I think a lot of the issue comes from them being so disorganized in blog writing and then sending in review drafts that are a mash of different variables in a non full factorial manner. They just don't think clearly in terms of disaggregation in their analyses. I saw it, but there's only so many hours in the day, did not bother nailing it.Other guy: It's been discussed a lot. Start with the 2005 Huybers comment on McI's 2005 paper. It's a very easy read and H even shows the formula so you can see how McI changed two paramaters at once (but did not report a full factorial). No OFAT. No full factorial. Just two equations with three unknowns (two independ variables, and one dependent).
By: | Sep 03, 2012 | Report Comment
QJ3FPe Can be also this issue because the truth can be achieved only in a dispute :DD
By: | Feb 11, 2012 | Report Comment
The Earth Wound
jbade
Jane Palmer
There are 3 pieces of art in this thread