Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d:oug who wrote (49441)	2/22/2000 6:00:00 AM
From: Zardoz	Respond to of 116857

<<...the above statement contains an outright lie. Barrick does not own any Trizec Hahn so far as I know. And I think it's also true to say that Trizec Hahn sold its last position in Barrick a couple of years ago.>> You make a statement in a black/white yes/no declarative, which was "an outright lie", and then you qualify it in a manner to subaltern it and place a nullification status onto it. TrizecHahn sold the last of their Barrick Shares in 1998 for 142.3M U.S. dollars. It was the residual of the bought deal in the form of receipts... ABX.IR

To: d:oug who wrote (49441)	2/22/2000 1:51:00 PM
From: Enigma	Respond to of 116857

Internet lingo is not renowned for good grammar. I qualified the statement that Barrick owns no Trizec Hahn - because it's possible but highly unlikely that Barrick (a pure gold company) owns some stock in a real estate company. But I'll stick with the outright lie declaration for the sake of purity. The item you copied was incorrect as to fact - a lie - no?