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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Technology Stocks & Market Talk With Don Wolanchuk -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Casaubon who wrote (19658)	4/14/2005 11:54:04 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 207997

It would be possible for me to construct a counter argument, if only I knew what you were trying to say. As an example, I will extract an excerpt from a previous post: So why did you select out what seems difficult when I made quite a few easy claims? The reason is simple. You don't want to give a counter argument because you can't. You can only give what has already been given, the unofficial groupthink of the 'Bug world. It isn't possible to refute moral indignation. I had said: It is a game of playing the other bigger fool, is it not? The best logic though is the contrary contrary contrary opinion of it. It means that there's a logic to the elementary game theoretical process of playing to the greater fool, but there's a better logic applicable to that play by taking game theory to a higher order: There's opinion. The contrary of opinion is contrary opinion. The contrary of contrary opinion is contrary contrary opinion which is equal to opinion. The contrary of contrary contrary opinion is contrary contrary contrary opinion which is equal to contrary opinion. The opinion here is that silver will rise, so the contrary contrary contrary opinion to that is silver will fall. Why the superfluous extra opinions? One must keep up with the order of the game theoretics now prevalent in commodity markets in order to be stupid enough to think one can beat them. Now, if you really want to contend against my comments about silver which were made crystal clear in spite of your weak attempt to obfuscate them, you can come over to my thread and do so. Don't worry, _chief, this is my last post. I don't belong here.

To: Casaubon who wrote (19658)	4/15/2005 7:15:01 AM
From: Jeff Jordan	Respond to of 207997

Logic? Reason? He thinks he's it's master. You better not even attempt to enter into that mental playground of contrary contrary contrary land! LOL, here's a moronic contrary contrary contrary opinion! >>>> All pure silver play companies will be bankrupt in two years. <<<<< ..........................only a bigger foolish pseudo intellectual would believe an arrogant statement like that! Problem is; where are you going to find a grander fool on SI to make such a statement or even believe the veracity of such a grand opinion? It's another contrary contrary contrary conundrum.<g> How many of these asterisks apply to the wisdom of ahhaha? You be the judge. The intellectual is looking for the right questions to ask; the pseudo is giving what he claims to be the right answers. The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right, or being thought to be right, whether he is or not. The intellectual is willing to admit that what he does not know is far greater than what he knows; the pseudo claims to know as much as can be known about the subject under consideration. The intellectual states as good a case for his adversary as can be made out; the pseudo sets up a straw man and beats it to death for the sake of seeming superior. The intellectual is deeply and constantly aware of the limitations of human reason; the pseudo makes a deity of reason and tries to force it into realms it cannot penetrate. The intellectual seeks light from whatever source, realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and turn up in the most unexpected places from the most improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he does, only from experts and specialists and certified authorities. The intellectual advances an hypothesis that he hopes may be true; the pseudo propounds a dogma that he insists is true. The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white, right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint. The intellectual knows there are no final answers to human questions; the pseudo makes each tentative and provisional answer sound like a finality. The intellectual is courageous in opposing majority opinion, even when it jeopardizes his position; the pseudo slavishly follows "the most reliable authorities" in his field sneering at heresies. *The intellectual never talks down to his audience, but tries to be as clear as possible; the pseudo talks above his audience to mystify and impress them."