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: Tommy D who wrote (2535)	1/25/2002 11:25:18 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

Nothing in your response seems to disagree fundamentally with my previous post other than you seem to dispute my suggestion as to your definition of a trader. ---------------- Fundamentally your post dealt with what a trader was. You stated a trader was someone who traded frequently. Stan and Lorne both have stated and shown they trade frequently. You said who wasn't a trader was someone who did not trade frequently but did so because of an assessment of his risk tolerances and of the general market conditions , etc. NOW AGAIN THE AND YOUR OWN DOCUMENTED FACTS SHOW LORNE AS A TRADER.---------------- You point to Stan and Lorne and suggest that what you disagree with is people who trade. --------------- I disagree with people who show only one side. The best of trading. That trading always works. That it never fails or worse yet when it does fail it is just so insignificant that the next trade will make it all back plus more. I can show and have shown documented posts where both Stan and Lorne have said each of these. I will be happy to give the posting numbers or links as I have done previously. A look to my last couple of posts to Lorne will show that beyond any doubt. -------------------------- However, in the past you have attacked others that have disagreed with your buy, hold and accumulate on weakness strategy. ------------ I have "attacked" those that have clearly misrepresented the facts. For one the major who attack me is with the buy-hold point A to point B instant in time,comparisons . Which as I told you. You could not even get right. THAT IS NOT WHAT I DO NOR IS IT WHAT I HAVE SAID I HAVE DONE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. Anyone who has attacked me has made the exact same point and mistake. But clearly it is an apples to oranges comparison. And it is a false comparison. But it is the only comparison they can make because if they did a proper look then they could not claim victory in the argument. They just hope that no one will be able to see the difference. The difference however is crystal clear especially given the amount of supporting fact and data I have countered it with. --------------------------- I do not short stocks and while I buy and sell stocks from time to time, it is based upon the principles and the issues I raised in my previous message to Lorne. I suspect many others who posted are similar to myself but you disagreed and lumped us in with the "traders" and essentially told us how wrong we were so what else can one do but conclude that you have a very broad definition of trader. --------------- You have a knack of talking out of both sides of your mouth like Lorne. You and others say I am buy hold , show a buy-hold look at from point A to point B time frame and say look Peter is wrong. You and the others are lumping me in with the exclusive buy-holders because of your inability to read that which is spelled out in plain english time after time after time in everything I say. Then you have the nerve to say because you do it and do it first I might add thats okay and alright. But if anyone (ME) does it in kind. Well that is so very wrong-------------- AGAIN YOU JUST MAKE THIS TOO EASY ---------------------- You also assert that Lorne is promoting trading. I just don't think that is accurate. He has stated his strategy ----------------- He has STATED NOTHING MORE THAN "TRADING IS SUPERIOR". Where is his strategy? Please link to that post. How can it be tested.? How can it be verified? What I have said of mine, can be all of these, linked to , tested and verified. ------------------------- and prior to the posts between Lorne and yourself which turned very ugly at times, ---------------- That ugliness comes from Stan and Lorne, Mark. Care to count the insults raised throughout the posts. Obviously not, facts just don't seem to interest you. ------------------------------------------ others would agree or disagree with Lorne and there was discussion about the strategy. --------------- What discussion. There was no discussion. Stan and Lorne simply said trading was superior. All others were just to believe it as gospel. The discussion only started when I confronted and asked for proof asked for some documented evidence of such an outrageous claim. Fact again look to the level of posts when these discussions have happened and when they haven't. ---------------------------- I think thats the purpose of the forum, not to say one method is right or wrong but to provide different perspectives and information which everyone if they smart will take with a grain of salt. Nothing more, nothing less. ------------- The Internet is full of forums where people take what is said with a grain of salt. Joe average investor doesn't need more of the same. Because that is the feed back I have been receiving from this and other forums I have been active on. The message I got and have been getting is that joe wants a forum where if you make a claim you back that up what you say with evidence. Joe needs to know the questions he needs to ask , he needs the answers to those questions and where to find them so he can check their validity. . What he doesn't need or want is to have someone try to con him into trading away his life's saving just on his word alone saying """ trading is superior """" now go do it. And whether you care to believe it or not that is what the likes of Stan and Lorne and others are saying. Or they would not be so vocal against providing the evidence that I have been asking for.. If you feel it is wrong for someone to ask for another to back up a claim then simply say so.----------------------- As I think I stated before, I understand your strategy. ---------------- You don't understand it at all. And I say that because of your error previous in what my strategy was. It is not buy-hold as you said in your original post-------------------- I know others that live by it and are happy with their investment strategy but it doesn't work for me from a risk perspective --------------- It doesn't work for you because you thought it was buy-hold. Its not. And you probably still see it that way. Therefore any sort of risk analysis you did on my method ,if you even did any whatsoever , which I doubt, unless you would care to provide it, IS WRONG. Because your not looking at the right thing in the first place. --------------------- and I sleep better assessing the situation and taking a profit or changing my position from time to time. -------------- At what always a profit? How many times? Do the gains outnumber the losses? How do you assess and how can that method be verified? What happens if you act (change) too soon or too late or fail to act at all.? These and others are all questions that joe should be asking and getting answers for before he risks his hard earned money. If you don't think so then say so. Or are you going to cop out and say well the person who presents the claim shouldn't have to help answer those questions for joe. And if he refuses to help joe get those answers then what does that say about the claim in the first place.? --------------------------- In any event, no more posts about the topic and I will go back to lurking and reading the various comments about both trusts as there are many different perspectives which why we have a market. Regards TommyD