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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (23878)	10/31/1997 9:37:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

I would not totally use ad hominem reasoning to judge the veracity of a person's claims. I realize its the handy prejudice many use to save the time and effort of brain work, but it was the blind street seer who bade Ceasar beware the Ides of March. I suppose Ceasar would have said.."well he is blind, what can he see?" But he did see. If you go to Lumbert's swindle sheet posting you will find he has enumerated 97 reasons why Alanco is afraudulent. primenet.com I judge him by his words in this manner: His compendium is very thorough and well analysed. For a person to enmumerate such a list alone his mind must be clear and coherent. His intelligence and critical faculty is obviously well honed. He has done his research and presented it in a clear and exhaustive manner point by point. From the volume alone is hard to argue with. It also shows a good understanding of the market. Obviously if he knows of every regulation and operation of a public company and how they may defraud, he is knowledgeable. Could you for instance, or even Alanco refute his statements point by point? Preponderance of accusation and evidence eventually must draw attention. Even the fact that he is able to enumerate the alleged frauds and relate them to suspicious goings-on should disturb an investigator about the probable integrity of the company. Its too many plausible problems for something not to be wrong. Similarly the statement in the anti-trust suit is well reasoned, shows a good knowledge of law, precedent, operations of public companies and the operation of this company in question, IPMCF. Whether he has the money to prosecute the suit is not in question. I am sure you know or are aware of corrupt people in your community. Whether you have the resources to sue them for their corruption and the resources to protect yourself from their conspiratorial retaliation may influence you to not take action on behalf of your fellow citizens. It does not erase the existence of the problem that you do not do so. echarter@vianet.on.ca