Enigma,
Just to echo those observations I made that your posts
far and away accomplish the end result being that those
who only read this thread and do not post, and fall into
the category of folks that have not the training or studies
in these market and mining matters, and only wish to get
clued in to whats happening so that they can make a decision
like "Do I buy/hold/sell Barrick ABX" based on sentiments
placed on this thread. My guess is that many Barrick
shareholders who fit this description tried and failed
to obtain this information on the SI Barrick thread,
as there I'm guessing they found it to be either black
or white in substance, as in two sides of opposite views
calling the other side false and wrong.
Until you "changed" your approach to replies to the Barrick
bashing on this thread from the likes of I using GATA material,
you only presented a mini copy of the SI Barrick thread,
but since that change I feel that those who may represent
a sizable number of ABX shares being held, and wish only
for a sense of "Is Barrick ABX o.k." has received the answer
from your replies on Barrick as being "Yes, Barrick is good
and correct now, and has always been, and will continue to be."
Now lets see what I mean, using your reply to my post that
mentioned a reference to Pangea & Barrick at the Cafe.
You reply has the following.
<<Terry Swift posted that on the Pangea Thread
- the Midas posting I mean.
It contains a lot of information
which is factually inaccurate -
so I can't give it much credence.....>>
These above statements are not that which I have focues on,
as it's just your opinion, and the accuracy and truth of it
is the required burden of the reader to make.
You reply then has the following.
<<I think personally that Pangea was sold for too little
and that they were outmanoevoured by Barrick>>
The "were outmanoevoured" identifies only that Barrick
was better at completing a legal deal with Pangea,
and any sour grapes by any investors of Pangea should be
directed only at Pangea's management team as doing a poor
job to protect shareholders interest. Barrick is ok here,
as they did their job required of them for share value.
You reply then has the following.
<<...you'd have to read the Pangea Thread
to get the flavour of all this...>>
Good advice to the readers out there.
You reply then has the following.
<<I don't think the word 'criminal' applies at all.>>
ok, I agree to accept your words,
not as a fact for me to accept,
but only as your opinion,
and to connect this with the "subject" of this post,
I feel that it was delivered to those readers, that I
spoke of, through their reading posts on this thread
with topic Barrick, and if I am correct in my speculation
that these Barrick shareholders only wish to obtain enough
non technical and non mining and non market information
about Barrick, and here I say in mostly the place where
these people are currently holding ABX shares and wondering
what to do since one side says Barrick is bad and will crash,
and your side 180 degress says the other side is incorrect.
So its not a regular gold mine company investment
for these ABX shareholders, where the price of gold
is the most important indicator to determine action
to buy/hold/sell, but the extremes they hear is that
either Barrick will do good and maybe even better
than other gold produces, or Barrick is bad and evil
and these so far unproven views, if true, has a good
chance to belly-up Barrick, aka share value hurt bad.
Now let me present again that reply piece you made.
<<I don't think the word 'criminal' applies at all.>>
If a Barrick shareholder did not read
the Le Metropole Cafe article
and cares not for what happens to Pangea share value,
only Barrick ABX share value,
as most holding ABX I speculate are as,
then you "pooped pooped" my post,
as my post becomes trash like,
fit for the garbage,
useless and to be ignored,
eventhought it references possible criminal activity,
which is the type of make or break stuff on things.
So I ask you,
but not really,
since this post is all about how you reply to such posts,
but to complete this post,
I ask you why the following
<<I don't think the word 'criminal' applies at all.>>
"at all" meaning zero you feel
the following did not touch upon "criminal"
even if the reference was not proven
especially since the means to prove it
was itself part of the system called criminal,
aka politicans + appointments by politicians to judgeships.
To: terryswift
From: terryswift
Wednesday, July 12, 2000
The following letter was sent to Bill Murphy of GATA.....
Dear Bill:
I have noticed that Barrick figures prominently
in accusations of gold manipulation. Being a Canadian,
and having had to endure many years of corrupt government
under the direction of Brian Mulroney, it is no surprise
that he should be a valued director of that company..... |
