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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (10921)	11/1/2006 5:52:18 PM
From: Rolla Coasta	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217740

Ok, enough. I go jogging now. How's the air quality in HK ? If it is getting worse, your gold might worth more.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (10921)	11/1/2006 8:38:36 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217740

TJ, that's not strictly true: <... fact is, a bit of gold never hurt anyone > All those who paid $800 an ounce quarter of a century ago lost a high proportion of their money. Quite right though, the lucky ones didn't lose out, just the unlucky who were silly enough, credulous and gullible enough to believe that "Go-d will save you". Those who don't understand that gold in the long run is worth the cost of producing another ounce of it from unlimited supplies in Earth's crust and oceans are at risk. They will naively believe the Aztec incantations. Then there's Mqurice's Midas trick of removing 2 or 3 protons from lead and mercury. My prototype is under development. Would you like to put in an order for a ton of gold at $400 an ounce [2006 inflation-adjusted dollars]? There will be plenty for everyone. Mqurice