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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Taikun who wrote (32753)	11/24/2004 10:39:49 PM
From: Douglas M. Benedict	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

It was not my intention to explain away the incident...but if you look closely at NEM in 1985-87 it went parabolic...the drop just brought it back to a normal range from where it proceeded to rise over the ensuing years...to take the TOP of 80+ as a starting point for comparing drops as if that was the normal range seems misleading as it was an unrealistic level to begin with.. (sort of like $50 silver as a top measure in 1979)...again, due to the takeover effect/influence...chop that concentrated upper activity off (rational or irrational period though it may be) and one comes to a different conclusion...To use that incident to emphasize an argument seems like a poor choice...maybe AEM would have been a better candidate...I have no opinion...I just wanted to emphasize the unique circumstances in effect that are not explained in the chart (TRUE CAUSE AND EFFECT)...