Just in case you didn't know, "RIF" means "reading is fundamental".
How is:
a meaningful response to:
-------------------
Either the the subject of my comment eluded your intellectual grasp or you are deliberately using a fairly dishonest and aggressive mode of debate just to score points on whatever internal scoreboard you're keeping in your head.
This is becoming a pattern with your conduct on this forum, and I'm not the only poster whose comments you have attempted to twist. I dunno if you understand it or not, but we are not engaged in campaigning for political office here where the candidate has to be perceived as omniscient in order to win the election.
Credibility in these types of discourses comes in part from acknowledging the merits of the opposition's perspective even when we disagree with some of the details. The starting point is acknowledging our common ground; what we mutually accept to be true.
Acknowledge the obvious first and then develop your reasons for disagreeing. It's the same way we work in our appraisal assignments or our review assignments. You're not losing any credibility by acknowledging that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
-----------------------
In this case we should be able to agree that - regardless of when the feds issued the requirements outlined in that appendix - which by definition is used to clarify and elaborate upon the regs to which it refers and not supercede them - those requirements have already been in print for a long time. Way longer than a sizable percentage of appraisers have been appraising.
If we can agree on that much then sitting here and squabbling about when those requirements actually kicked in serves no useful purpose to the topic at hand, which is that appraisers are required to identify the readily known and knowable assignment conditions that apply to their assignments. We should both be able to agree with the idea that a published reference to which an SMT that was issued issued in 2000 referred (in the past tense, no less) and to which a current AO refers can be categorized as "knowable" even if an appraiser is inexperienced with such work and doesn't already know about these requirements. (aka incompetent)
Some of us were already in the business 25+ years ago when the feds first started instructing their regulated institutions on these requirements. You apparently don't believe us when we tell you that's how far back it goes, which is your prerogative to believe even if it does amount to you calling us liars. But that entire tangent of "when" is irrelevant to the central question of what's expected of appraisers in performing certain appraisal assignments in 2014.
So can we at least agree that in 2014 these requirements are readily knowable by any appraiser who at least asks the question "do any of the intended users need an 'as is'?" ???
