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: Gerald Walls who wrote (24108)	11/3/1997 1:23:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

You are the guy who has been waiting for two years for results. Aren't you curious? Why do you want to know my accounts? are you willing to publish all you trades? Three things you should learn I believe sir are the Cambridge Rules of debate, Robert's Rules of order, and the scientific method. The later is published in psychology texts and there is a book under that name. The other two can be got from a library. Elementary rules of logic rule out the character of the person making a statement as proof of its validity per se. An attack on a person to prove an argument is called the logical fallacy of ad hominem. It means "against the man." It does not address the question of the argument and purports actually to admit the assertions in a sense. Your questions are irrelevant and in a parliamentary context are violation of privilege of a member. You cannot also in debate call the other debater a liar without a stringent standard of proof. Lying means knowing you tell a non fact. It is very hard to prove. I have proved my case. There is no proof of any platinum whatsover on the IPM property. There is no thirdy party acclamation of such. There have been by industry standards untenable and doubtful claims as to economics. Knowledgeable people who have expressed doubts have been silenced by court injunction without any attempt to find out whether their statements were justified. The suit merely spoke about the gov't's role in setting up the geological survey and seemed to have handed down the judgement that the survey is without a right of opinion and no voice. I believe the judge erred. Similar claims by other companies have been rejected by competent assaying authority. And no proof to back up other's like claims has resulted in Canadiana exchanges delisting of such companies. echarter@vianet.on.ca