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: Peter W. Panchyshyn who wrote (4310)	9/21/2002 10:07:07 PM
From: Lorne Larson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11633

You're the one the used the word "always". Now you're using an example that relies on someone buying at an absolute low - not "always". If someone bought Luscar at $10, should he have bought more at $8? At $6? At $5? That certainly would have been at the low-end of its trading range at that time. What about MXT? What about TAY? Fact of the matter is that when TAY was at $6 it was at the than low end of its trading range, but it would have been a mistake to buy more of it rather than, say, AET. For every example of where your silly theory has worked, I can give you one where it hasn't. And since you said one should "ALWAYS" buy more of what you own, you lose the argument.