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 : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: loantech who wrote (10169)	5/1/2006 11:16:21 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78419

Tom, you are the best. I have always admired statsmen like yourself. Poundmaker on SH has that quality. So did Joe Bardwich-lol. And I am being very serious. You do us all a great service. It is a hard job to temper over the top postings (and rable rousers like myself-lol), yet not lose integrity and profoundness. I will tone my postings down out of respect for you. And try to stick to the subject at hand better. Making some money trading mining stocks. cheers

To: loantech who wrote (10169)	5/2/2006 1:16:57 AM
From: SI Dave	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 78419

Tom, I'll go ahead and elaborate a bit more on the basis for all of this. In order to maximize the value of time invested on SI, everyone is better off when the political rhetoric is segregated from the bona fide investment-related discussion. It is unreasonable to for someone to demand the "right" to inflict their personal partisan political views on a discussion of the relative merits of an investment. There was another user who wanted to discuss the politics of depleted uranium as weapons of war on a uranium investment board. The only common theme was uranium; the partisan political discussion, while certainly worthy of discussion, detracts from the investment discussion. I illustrated the difference in ideological vs. geopolitical discussion this way: Stating a belief that the price of uranium is up because oil and gas prices are high, pressuring the building of more more nuclear plants despite the government's lack of a long-term spent-fuel storage plan is geopolitical dialog, directly on-topic, and absent partisan rhetoric. Saying that US soldiers should get radiation poisoning and die as payback for their use of depleted uranium munitions is partisan rhetoric of the rankest type. Saying that the president should be impeached for allowing depleted-uranium munitions is ideology based partisan politics and really not pertinent to the discussion of uranium as an investment. That's not to say the any of it is necessarily untrue, or that people don't have valid reasons for taking those positions, but it has no bearing on the underlying investment discussion. Partisan politics unchecked will ALWAYS drown out the investment discussion. Believe me, there is plenty of precedent in support of that; more than a few excellent investment boards were lost to totally off-topic political dialog when there was no segregation. Most users can only afford to devote a limited time to read and discuss topics of their interests. Some chose to focus on investment discussion, others spend their time on the political boards, and some utilize both. Doing it this way ensures the opportunity for everyone to discuss whichever topics they chose without being forced to waste valuable time sifting though a bunch of noise posts in the process. Regards, Dave