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: long-gone who wrote (67421)	4/9/2001 4:01:58 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 116915

Richard.. I don't recall ever suggesting that I offered an opinion on petroleum or natural. At least not in the past year. Was that someone else? And those who have followed my comments about Nuclear energy, I've been expressing concern that the technology boom has created pressures on the energy infrastructure sector. One cannot prosper without the energy to support it. And I don't believe I ever tried to justify the price of most of these stocks trading at 100x earings or 10 times revenues. If anything I tried to time them technically and not fundamentally.

To: long-gone who wrote (67421)	4/9/2001 8:13:31 PM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116915

yes this is off topic, but its on target to a degree of Bulls-Eye'ism the following after you read it, you will say "Sooooooooooooooooo true, why didn't i say that." Hard 4 me to believe this saying does not get more air-time. - a short not true, but should-be true story To:Ron Reece From: long-gone Yes ron-ron you are correct once each year, and the reason 4 this is as follows. "A stopped yearly calendar is always correct for one day." Makes me wonder if above has that richard of mazz science standard of deviltry'ism and only 10 year calendar data used.