International Precious Metals (IPMCF) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : International Precious Metals (IPMCF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: go4it who wrote (29559)	1/1/1998 12:23:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) of 35569

Chuck, I think that in the past, some of those that had doubt about IPMCF's valuation and even their management ability to get the this play off the ground have been maligned. Yet in time we got to learn each other side's positions. I personally do not consider verbal pugilism on a personal level fruitful, so I have tried to avoid it as much as possible (even after dear Anne offered me the nuce (g) or was it someone else?). In any event, Jim has been called quite a number of derogatory names on this thread and one must admit that to some extension, the position he took at the time was more reflective of the IPMCF state than many other. I think that the hatychet should be burried and that discourse should be limited to facts, point of view on facts and opinions as well as speculations, but personal characterization of posters (and character assassination) should be left out. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all those on this thread, many of wehich have disagreed with my position vehemently in the past, for voicing your concern and requesting the reinstatement of my posting privileges on SI. Thank you and have a prosperous and happy new year. Zeev

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next