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: E. Charters who wrote (24110)	11/3/1997 1:33:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

"I believe the judge erred." Let's see EC, you believe the judge erred, you know IPM is lying, you think Behre Dolbear/Bateman/Lycopodium are in this for the money while knowing this is a fraud. You obviously know much more than Capital Guardian, which owns 12% of the company. You obviously know much more than Jay Taylor, Ron Struthers, and Martyn Hay, who have all recommended the purchase of this stock. You obviously know much more than the insiders, who haven't sold a share of their stock (funny way to run a scam, by the way). Gee, EC. Maybe you should run for Prime Minister. Obviously you know so much more than anybody else in any field. Better yet, maybe you should run for Pope. Or better yet, God. You are omniscient, and we are not worthy of your company.

To: E. Charters who wrote (24110)	11/3/1997 1:47:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 35569

Why do you want to know my accounts? are you willing to publish all you trades? I asked you several specific questions, none of which were requests to list all your trades. Every one was a different question to determine if you will profit by a decline in this stock's price, if you have, are, or will be receiving any payments or considerations for making negative comments on this stock, or if you are associated in any way with any individuals or institutions shorting this stock, in the US or abroad. You refuse to answer. I, on the other hand, will profit from an increase in this stock, and then solely from my small position I bought as an individual investor. I receive no payments or considerations from anyone in regards to this stock. Your turn. 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. Yada yada yada. The next time we engage in a formal debate I'll be sure to follow those rules. You refuse to answer the question and then post a bunch of garbage to obsfucate that fact. To paraphrase a message of yours about refusal to reply to questions, "Why not? What is it you are hiding?" 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. And it's amazing how you'll do anything to avoid answering the questions and providing some of that evidence. I have proved my case. There is no proof of any platinum whatsover on the IPM property. You have claimed from your first post on this thread on that "IPM is a scam." This means that you have claimed from your first post on that the officers and directors of IPM are liars. See your statement above about liars. All you've done is prove that the results of the on going third party verification have not yet been released.

To: E. Charters who wrote (24110)	11/4/1997 1:53:00 AM
From: Theo	Respond to of 35569

<< 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.>> Whos sense? Yours? Because its not common sense! According to you, if a man was a liar, and I said " Eric, your a liar" that would mean, what you say is true. Now theres a great twist on logic. Thanks for showing us another of your beliefs. Are you trying to get us to agree with you, just because your lying? Theo