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 (3593)	6/27/2002 5:13:48 PM
From: Peter W. Panchyshyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

A simple yes or no will suffice. -------- For you there is ALWAYS a yes and no answer. To everything. Simple. Now I have been asking over several postings why you saw the need to lie about your PWI switching. Why one post near immediate after the incident recorded in your past post dated dec 20 2001 you said from the proceeds of the loss on PWI you bought AY and PVE. Later recent past when I grilled you on your statement, that switching into just about any other trust at the time would have made money and would have done better than sticking with the same trust and buying on its lows, that you changed your story to it was switched to AVN. THE ABSOLUTE BEST EXAMPLE FOUND WELL AFTER THE FACT. And still you refuse to say anything on the matter. -------------- I will reword the strategy (taking out the reference to loss, since you do not agree that there has been any loss) so that everyone on this board is entirely clear on your position: ----------------- Its not that I just do not agree with there has not been any loss. Revenue Canada has made the distinction of realized and unrealized as it concerns gains and losses. Their ruling on the matter leaves nothing for debate. Its point of fact. PERIOD. As to my strategy I have already laid out its details in that referenced post from earlier. Its all there. And it is supported by the historical past trust data, and the real time data which we have been following over the last year. Again PERIOD. ----------------- Peter's strategy is that if you hold an oil and gas trust that has dropped in price, and have further money to invest in that sector, it is ALWAYS better to invest that money in the trust that you hold as opposed to another oil and gas trust. -------------- In matter of debate when one side makes a claim such as yourself that "most any other trust would have made money if you had switched into it". Then it is typical for that side to produce real world fact and trust data to support his claim. YOU DID NOT. I provided real world trust fact and data which showed otherwise. I provided examples from several trusts on your own list which showed that 1 in 5 or 20% made money. From that clearly 80% did not and thus your statement was proved incorrect according to the real world evidence. Now instead of going and getting real data to try to prove your case and disprove my numbers concerning your claim. You think that if you somehow try to turn the tables and say well mine isn't 100% either. That that somehow proves your own case it does not. That tactic in debate is lame to say the least. And is rarely if ever used by any skilled debater. Because quite simply it doesn't win the debate. A skilled debater will back his statement up with real world fact alone. Now when I pointed out that with my little math examples your argument provided a 20% success rate with the real world trust data and what that data clearly showed was that you were wrong it failed a good 80% of the time. It meant that you were wrong. PERIOD . I clearly said I will leave it up to joe average trust investor here to decide for himself which way he wants to go according to the evidence. Now it then became up to you to counter what I provided to dispute yours with real world data of your own. You choose not to. So if you wish to continue this and try to prove your case provide some real trust data to support it . I already have more than enough data to counter any that you can provide. ------------------ Is this correct?