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 : Canadian REITS, Trusts & Dividend Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (2521)	1/24/2002 2:05:33 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

The facts are that I posted on Sep 11 saying I was short NCF. Low that day was 12.50. I posted on Oct 2 saying I was out. High that day was 12.40. Look it up. Even if you don't believe the trades I posted, the WORST possible position I could have had would be a gain of .10. -------------- If I take your numbers to be accurate and in this instance as example only I will. That is a gain of $0.10. Now for that to be superior would have to mean that the amount put into that trade to realize a "superior return" would have to be what???? And is that amount a realistic amount for joe average to be using or investing at one time???? NO ---------------- Not quite the loss of 4.00 you have continually insinuated. You knowingly manipulated the numbers and the dates ------------- I did no manipulating whatsoever as I pointed out in my last post to you. The whole idea of me bringing up the range going from 10.80 to 14.80 was in response to gg cox post of his assertion that it would take NCF many many many years to recover. A FACT that you just overlook or ignore. So what you claim as manipulating is not fact is not true. PERIOD -------------------- . I would have ignored it, but you than repeated this lie in numerous posts to other posters. ----------- Because the context I was bringing it up under in those posts to other posters was not the same. And was in response to something completely different. AS DOCUMENTED. You just decided to stick your nose into it. ---------------------- Now I'm going to say something that may surprise you. Your approach of buying the oil and gas trusts and holding them no matter the fluctuation in price is a decent strategy. --------- Something that you never said before. Had you said that instead of that yours was superior and not backing up that claim just maybe this might not have gotten started. ------------------ I expect that you can legitimately claim that this has brought you better returns than most people, particularly over the last 5 years. -------- And again this is something that you never said. What you did say and it is documented is that your way was superior. When I asked for some proof. None was forthcoming. Then you tried to turn the tables by questioning my way and you wanting proof. And to defend my approach I delivered repeatly. But still your delivery of your sides evidence was not forthcoming. You made a game of it. ------------------- You also refuse to accept that any other approach on these trusts can bring better returns than your buy and hold strategy. ------------- This is in direct contrast to what you just said above """" I expect that you can legitimately claim that this has brought you better returns than most people, particularly over the last 5 years.""""". All I asked for and demanded was that you provide the proof. DOCUMENTED AND VERIFIABLE. There is nothing wrong with wanting that. ----------------------- I don't agree with you, but I understand your argument. -------------- You seem to be trying to talk out of both sides of your mouth. If you understood than there would have been no need resist providing the evidence I asked for. But you did resist. ---------------- The problem that I have with you is that you treat any other approach as a personal affront,and heap insults on any poster who disagrees with you. ------------ Care me to go through the postings to see just who heaped the most insults. It was you. I would be more than happy to do so. ----------------- You're also a lying, ---------- It is very interesting the stuff you just do not want to respond to from my previous post # 2520 and that is , you said """""""""I actually shorted on Sep 6 at 15.22, Sep 7 at 14.89, covered Sep 10 at 14 and 14.15; shorted again on Sep 17 at 12.95 and Sep 18 at 12.65, covered Sep 19 at 12."""""""" then I responded """""""Now you introduce the undocumented additional covers and shorts going forward. Now I am just suppose to take your word for these. Especially given some very interesting peice of information from a later post of yours. And from that post # 2470 """"""""In all seriousness I'll be happy to bet you if you can show me a post where I've said "that you can trade these or short these trusts in just periods of days for "superior gains". I'm waiting for either the quote or a retraction."""""""""""""""""""" ------------------ YOUR BUSTED -----------------"""""""""""""""" ------------ What you had said was that you wanted me to show you where you made a claim saying you could trade or short these in just days for superior returns. If I could not find one you wanted a retraction. Then you post some undocumented trades of JUST DAYS which have superior results. You bet me I can't find a post of yours making that kind of outrageous claim, then you go and write one for us all to see. This proves who the real lier is. And its you. As I said your busted. -------------- egotistical POS.