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 (2533)	1/25/2002 5:40:57 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

Interesting to note that even though the post was not directed to Peter "Can't Lose", he immediately posts to you with a number of typical snotty comments. ----------- Just to present some documented facts again. In gg cox post # 2462 he posted some incorrect facts about a recovery in trusts taking many many years. In my post # 2482 I responded with FACTS that show otherwise. In your post # 2521 you stuck your nose into the matter and the referenced posts were not even directed at you. So what you are saying here is it is okay for you to come busting into a conversion because it mentioned you but anyone else who does the same particularly after you have done it. Well that it is just uncalled for. YOU SHOW ONLY TOO WELL HOW TWO FACED YOU ARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. And I did not make snotty comments. They were clarifications and errors that I pointed out. Something you seem to think you only have the right to do on this board. Though your success at it is usually not that good ---------------- You have to understand that this guy regards any approach to the oil and gas trusts other than his own as an attack on him personally. Major personality disorder. ---------------- Now a person who you describes above, would not be providing mountains of fact and data, he would be making blanket statements with no supporting evidence and when someone challenges him on this he resorts to insults. Now according to a recent post by another member that would be you. Documented in post # 2527. ---------------- I have had 5 private posts from individuals who at one time posted regularly on this site indicating that they will not be back because of this wacko. -------------- Sure you have Lorne. We had one occassion where someone flung an insult at me during this period of exchange with you , post # 2453. It is interesting he made no commment to my pointing out that at least I contribute much more than his insult (fact and data) in my post # 2455. Now if someone is going to come to this board and fling an insult. It is likely he would not be too afraid to voice a public post stating he was not going to be contributing because of me. That isn't there. Nor has one been EVER. NICE TRY. Again fact proves what you say otherwise. ------------------- As for shorting these things, from June through October it was a snap. You could short them just before the announcement date, and if they announced a reduced dividend the unit price would collapse. You could also short them through the x-dividend date. ------------------ AN UNDOCUMENTED AND UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM. And yet you still haven't posted an explanation of why in a past post you say you wanted a retraction from me because I claimed that you said you could trade or short these trusts in a matter of days for superior gains (suggesting that that was not what you did or said you did). Please refer to post # 2523 and earlier # 2520 and # 2470. That your documented postings confirm as a LIE. ------------------- Your good Lorne at ignoring your documented screwups and lies prtending their not there. Problem for you is they are documented. They are there and will be there forever. And so will I to point them out to any and all when you make a post with an outrageous and unsupported claim as long as you keep doing such. Joe average deserves the right to come here for info and fact and discussion without you trying to con him just so you can make a buck. Again shame on you. ------------------ Lot's of people would hold them through the x-dividend date and than dump them. The drop in price was usually much more than the amount of the dividend you had to cover because of your short position. Also almost every one of the trusts announced offerings in September/Octoberr, always of course below the than current price. Now its getting tougher. PGF and NCF both recently announced big cuts in their monthly distributions and the unit price stayed pretty firm. Perhaps a sign that we've hit a bottom on these things. I'm now net long, although I'm a little worried about NG prices. Looks like we're going to drop through $2.00 on the U.S. market for the first time in what, 3 years? --------------- Too bad you could not keep your post to just the above paragraph. I guess that is just too much to ask. Instead you had to make most of your post an attack and bogus claims of superiority. As is usual. Well as long as you want to keep doing that I will play along , show your claims for the bogus they are, and ask , demand, real documented proof for joe average to assess. I am confident he will see your refusal as a BIG WARNING SIGN ----------------------------- Regards Enter symbols or keywords for search:

To: Lorne Larson who wrote (2533)	1/26/2002 9:57:31 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 11633

I'm a little worried about NG prices. Looks like we're going to drop through $2.00 on the U.S. market for the first time in what, 3 years? ------------- Just to give the REAL DOCUMENTED FACTS. Look to the link rudyard.ab.ca and in particular the graph entitled """" NYMEX GAS PRICES """"" concentrate on the year 2001 area. What do you see? Late in the year ngas prices fell below the $2 mark. Then recovered quickly to over $3 then moved again to the low $2 area then to climb to near $3. Now look back to the rest of the graph. Going back to 1995. What do you see? Ngas prices bouncing in this area for the majority of the time period except for the abberrent period late 2000 to early 2001. Which in itself can not be truly considered indicative of average historical past ngas prices, longer term. ---------- So indeed since this is clearly NOT the first time in 3 years the price has fallen to these levels or lower. What does that mean to the trusts? And considering many of these trusts were selling ngas at the lower prices in those past years. And still selling it more importantly above their costs of production. And passing on that income to unitholders. What is to be WORRIED ABOUT? The cycling exhibited has not stopped and will not stop. Income delivered has not stopped and will not stop. Sure at times it (the income) will be lower but at other times it will be higher. And it will do that repeatedly. Because that is what it has always done. And the unit prices of the trusts will reflect this cycling themselves lower and higher. The question remains as to if it is better for joe average to try to trade this cycling and get better returns. Which the documented evidence suggests is not the absolute certainty that some portray it to be. Especially for joe average who doesn't have the time , the dedication , or the methodology to carry out and get those results. Even should joe average decide to follow "a superior trader " if one exists here. Which the documented evidence shows clearly there is not. A joe average will do so not at the same time as the trader but only after he has posted his intentions. Which may be days after the trader has done so. AFTER THE FACT. As in Lornes posting claims of trades shorts in post # 2519. The only documented ones are for sep 11 when we have documented confirmation of his shorting. And oct 02 when we have documented confirmation of his closing out. He claims to have shorted actually first on sept 06 a full 5 days previous to his post. Meaning that someone who follows his advice and shorts does so at not the same price and most certainly not with the same results. That being a FACT. Puts Lornes worse case returns for following his advice not at a small gain. BUT AT A REAL LOSS. If one would care to examine the documented evidence of such.