Hi Greg, Welcome back. We spent some time in Garmisch-Partenkirchen a few years back and loved it. The mountains and the lakes reminded us a lot of B.C. But since I know most people are more interested in PFG than of hearing about the beauties of Bavaria (you lucky dog!) or about those of Beautiful British Columbia (as it says on our licence plates), I'll say a little about freedom of expression and the debate about Charters' exclusion from Silicon Investor.
If the argument about Charters' being banned from SI is couched in terms of freedom of speech and the evils of censorship, then it is difficult to defend. No one is in favor of abrogating the right of free speech. It's like being against motherhood or apple pie. People rise up righteously as if the bastions of Democracy were under siege. But as Jack Parleviet pointed out recently, freedom of expression is not an absolute right, particularly in a private forum. Just as a tavern keeper has the right to bar an unruly customer who has insulted and offended the guests and the tavern keeper, so SI has the right to monitor the posts on their threads and remove the posting privileges of those who consistently violate their rules after being warned to stop. Newspapers and magazines do not publish material they consider offensive. In other words, freedom of speech has its limitations; it always has had. Before taking the drastic step of withdrawing Charters' privilege to post on their forum in the face of Charters' threat to sue them if they did so, you can bet they checked it out with a lawyer who specialized in Internet law. One of the problem with Charters is that he over-stepped the bounds of common decency, even going so far as to call the Webmaster, Jill, a Nazi. That would not endear him to the person whose very job it is to monitor the threads. Many of his more egregious posts have been removed by SI, no doubt because they were concerned that some liability might conceivably attach to them for permitting libellous material to be published. For long-time readers of this thread, however, they will remember them.
But Charters, I suspect, was removed from SI not so much because he expressed a contrary opinion, nor because he insulted and offended in the coarsest possible language, but because he exposed SI themselves to liability. And the frenetic energy he displayed in blanket postings (I counted 45 on the PFG thread in three days, and he had virtually overwhelmed the Northrich Pacific thread) makes me question his motives. He says that he has no ulterior motive, that it is entirely altruistic: he simply wants to save investors money. I don't buy it; methinks he doth protest too much.
He said in one of his first posts on the PFG thread that he had nothing but contempt for professional geologists, that he did not deign to speak with any with less than a Ph.D. What colossal ego! This coming from a man who tried to become a geologist but did not complete the educational requirements. He is, essentially, a prospector who has decided to write a newsletter about Canadian junior mining stocks. I am not impressed by his self-proclaimed expertise, and I find it bizarre that he should be bragging about his lack of professional qualifications. Is that a selling point? I think his readership would be far better served by spending more time researching the stocks that he does recommend and less time in trashing those that he does not. In fact, why say anything at all about stocks that he does not recommend? There are many thousands out there really worthy of trashing. In my view the premier newsletter writer has to be David Coffin of the Hard Rock Analyst. He makes no apologies for having been a professional geologist with many years in the field. His recommendations are well researched, and, most important, he has an enviable track record. Arequipa was one of his early picks, as was Pacific Rim, Mongolia Gold, and St. Jude, to name a few.
Some might say that the law of defamation is available to protect those who feel they have been libelled. But as a practical matter, most people would not sue in these circumstances. For one thing, it would take about one and one-half years for the action to come on to trial after the pleadings had been closed; for another, it might likely result in a dry judgment.
For any who may still be awed by Charters' self-proclaimed expertise, his ability to bandy about esoteric geological jargon without anyone telling him that he does not know what he is talking about, I ask you to consider this: Charters recently told us that he still believes that there is "lots of gold at Busang," based on Bre-X's soil sampling. By his own admission, he has never been to Indonesia and therefore could know nothing about the geology of Busang. And he is basing his opinion on soil samples from Bre-X themselves! If they could salt the crushed core, they could certainly salt the soil samples. It would seem that the god-like Charters has missed that rather obvious point. His analysis of PFG is on the same level.
Similarly, Charters has never been to Argentina and knows precisely nothing about the geology of Diablillos or of Cerro Blanco. He has never examined the logs nor seen the formations. He has never satisfactorily explained why Barrick should continue to be so enthusiastic about Diablillos, nor why he himself recommended PFG as a speculative buy in his newsletter while at the same time trashing the stock. Maybe Barrick should be listening to Charters. They obviously do not know what they are doing. But of course they are probably making the stupid mistake of listening to their professional geologists. Charters could have told them that there was no use spending millions of dollars on Diablillos if only they had asked. Yeah, right!
I am not sorry to see him go. Contrarian views as well those of us cheerleaders are welcome. The negatives ought to be weighed along with the positives, and wild extrapolations of tonnage and share values ought to be tempered with realistic analysis. It's fun to be on Cloud 9, but it's also good to get back to earth. Another problem with Charters' criticisms is that he seldom answered the questions posed of him but would keep repeating his own viewpoint as if sheer repetition would make it so. He would seize on some so-called fact and would cling to it despite frequent refutations. If that is called serious analysis, then include me out. Although his adolescent iconoclasm might appeal to some who confuse bluster with wit, I don't think he is funny. But he is free to post on the alt. misc. investments.canada newsgroup, where he cannot be censored; or he can write what he likes on his own website. He can curse and swear to his heart's content, malign and vilify and offend till the cow's come home, and then protest that he was only defending himself. No one will say him nay, or if they do, he will be sure to drown them in a tidal wave of bafflegab.
No, Greg, Democracy and Freedom of Speech are still alive and well in the good old U.S. of A, so don't worry. It's just that one can't barge into someone's home and start calling him a Nazi. It's just not done!
David Owen |
