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.

Pastimes : Plastics to Oil - Pyrolysis and Secret Catalysts and Alterna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: the_big_guy who wrote (28882)	10/15/2012 2:17:58 AM
From: SteveF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 53574

I was banned from iHang the night before the SAIC report was leaked there and I hadn't even tried posting in days.

To: the_big_guy who wrote (28882)	10/15/2012 5:04:12 AM
From: PaperProphet	Respond to of 53574

Thanks. Yes, I completely agree on your 'basic assumptions' point. I will never make any headway there even though Mr. Bordynuik's $10/bbl cost and WTI-$3 claims are the absolute crux of the value. If those were fudged, the company is gone. What I've done instead is tried to get people to focus on really pressing Mr. Bordynuik for information on when any processor will supposedly running in a full, productive, profitable capacity. Mr. Bordynuik knows if it runs continuously then the next question will be why it's not making money and if it's losing money then it won't run for long. The only value in taking money which could instead find its way to Mr. Bordynuik's pockets to lose on a machine would be if that could be spun to suggest it's profitable and lead to more investment. Asking when, why, how much money before a processor will be on line is a fair proxy to asking Mr. Bordynuik to prove his $10/bbl diesel claims. Yes, shareholders should wonder why Mr. Bordynuik isn't forthcoming with that information on his own but hope obviously springs eternal and there's no shortage of faith. Regarding the PM's, I generally make it clear that anything told to me should be considered public but try to not to disseminate sensitive information anyway. In this case, it's clear the PM was the only venue for my communication with that mod and it wasn't sensitive.

To: the_big_guy who wrote (28882)	10/15/2012 5:14:08 AM
From: PaperProphet	Respond to of 53574

I do agree that the Hang mod is biased. I'm guessing he's a shareholder and feels keeping message boards positive is a way to "protect" his investment. My peeve on Hangout is the same as with 'Hub. The mods are generally very positive toward the company (on 'Hub by design) and anyone with a negative opinion is harassed to make it harder for those opinions to make it to the board. However, I don't see anything wrong with positive boards...as long as it's clearly marked as being a positive board...which 'Hub does not do. I'll give Rawnoc credit for his SI board on this. He made it clear that the board was for "longs only" and that negative opinions would be removed. With that I had no desire to go over there since it's fair. Any readers know it's to discuss only the pros, that they would be protected from hearing any cons and, if they actually wanted to hear and discuss both the pros and the cons, they needed to look elsewhere. On Hub and Hangout, there's an illusion that pros and cons are accepted and the only way anyone would know that they're not is if they post something critical about the company. That's misleading.