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 (3051)	3/26/2002 11:51:56 AM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Respond to of 11633

He confirmed in his first post that he invested for 16 years. All he had to do was to say he had acquired the trusts as mutual funds prior to that time. He did not. -------------- Well this is interesting according to Tommy I have to put in my very very very first post to someone everything thing I have done. If I do not do that then if in my second or third post I say something then it must not be true because it wasn't in the first post. Gee Tommy why isn't it that you did not have to give a complete and detailed acounting history of your investing in your very very first post. ------------------------ He then reverses field the next day -------------- Not a reversal at all just I did not realize that it was required to put everything into my very very very very first post. Because Tommy's rule was that if its not there it doesn't count. Do you even realize just how stupid that sounds????????? ------------------------- So please make it clear to any new commers just how long does their very very very very first post have to be before you are satisfied. And should it be a day to day accounting or hour by hour. ------------------ and then attacks me for stating what was in his posts, ----------------- I attack what you say is in my posts because you read in them what you want it to say not what I do say ---------------- not mine. It is a curious rationale that Peter operates on. Because he says it is so, it is. -------------------- I give out facts. Why don't you check them out. Is that too complicated for you. Most probably. I even give out my sources like the Financial Post Annual Dividend Record and 10 year price history as one. Are you so lame as to be saying that that is not valid. CHECK IT OUT. WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF??????????? He refers to facts that support his position but how does one support over the internet their investing pattern over 16 years. Did Peter post in 1986 about his purchases so they could be verified. Of course not. -------------- Do you even know anything about doing any sort of research at all. I detail a method which uses math and real past trust data. Quite simply check that method with the data. If it holds then the method is sound and works. And that is what matters. My purchases since 1986 are only a secondary to that. The real time testing of the last few months is of importance. Especially that recommendation I made to Harry about PWI using the method. The method worked real time as after that the price fell to below $6. The method said to buy for sure below that. And that came to be exactly what to do. Because the price rose to over $7. Thats the VERIFICATION. Ignore it if you want. Your ignoring it will not change it one bit. Or make it not so. No matter how much you want it to. PERIOD --------------------------- There was no internet so we are left with taking his word as to what he did or did not do. ---------------- But the method and the outcome following that method is something that you don't have to take anyones word on. IT WORKS. IT CAN BE TESTED IT CAN BE VERIFIED WITH THE DATA. And that is all that matters. Your whole argument is just so lame and makes no sense whatsoever. Its like taking a math class or science class and saying that your taking the teachers word for what he is saying and not that it is based upon and follows mathematical principles and data collected to prove those principles. ------------------------ While I disagree with Peter's investment approach, -------------- You can disagree with the approach that is your right. But disagree with it with facts or data and not opinion that you make out to be fact. With nothing backing that up. Thats not good science its not good math and it most definitely isn't good research. And to reach conclusions with none of science math or research means simply that your conclusions aren't worth anything. And they shouldn't be followed with ones hard earned money thats for sure. But you go right ahead. -------------------- I really had no reason to disbelieve what he said was his investment basis for a long period of time. His investment approach is very consistent with his personality on the thread, that of a very dogmatic narrow minded ------------- Gee narrow minded would be someone who said I will take apart your method and what you do by saying its 16 years and not near 20 or near 2 decades . Forget about all the historical trading data for the trusts. Forget about the math. Thats not whats key to the discussion. That is just nonsense. And to present such and think it is important is just so lame -------------------- individual but boy when someone complains as much as he did about something that he could have easily clarified, it makes you wonder. Maybe Peter thinks he is Garth Turner. Certainly both get on my nerves. Onto the real world. It will be interesting to see how the market reacts to the Shell/Penzoil deal. Probably will help the O&G stocks rather than the trusts. I sold about 1/3 of my trusts last week but only sold a little of the O&G shares that I intend to sell before month end. Hopefully get a bit of a bounce. Regards TommyD Enter symbols or keywords for search: Symbol Lookup Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top Terms of Use Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor.

To: Tommy D who wrote (3051)	3/26/2002 12:43:00 PM
From: mark calgary	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

Garth Turner isn't my favorite guy either, but why insult him by comparing him to this bozo. And Lorne - you calling him a wacko just gives wackos a bad name. Shame on you both. You are both right IMHO - the guy is not all there. The best thing is not to aggravate someone who is unstable and can't fathom that they have a problem. Now that doesn't mean that we can't laugh at him for taking himself so seriously or pity him for being so far out. The ones to really pity however would be his family. Can you imagine putting up with him 24 hours a day! And we think we have it rough....... Mark