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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J Krnjeu who wrote (31155)	12/29/1997 12:13:00 AM
From: (Bob) Zumbrunnen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Very refreshing, JK, to see a reasoned and well-worded response. And not at all surprising that you did it with greater verbal efficiency than I. Before anyone jumps all over that statement, they should keep in mind I'm my own worst critic and am well aware of my verbosity. I don't have a problem with Pugs having brought forward such information. Just because I listen to Kugler doesn't mean everyone else should, and the best way for others to decide whether they should is to review his history. That said, I do take exception with the way Pugs has clogged the thread, and the way he has added his own opinions and presented them as fact, even when insufficient evidence exists to consider them fact. I also take exception to his refusal to discuss fundamentals, even when the questions are asked of him directly. Such behavior has, in my past experience, been a smoke screen, so I tend to think it probably is in this situation, too. They are consistantly slamming any info and always show it in a bad light. Kugler, "Are you or are you not the black angel of death?" (from the movie "Black Sheep") <g> I can't refute this at all. My only experiences with Mike have been when he has pointed out a negative about a company. He may have said positive things about other companies, but I haven't seen it. Personally, I've always interpreted it as him being a "glass is half empty" kind of guy. IMO, it's irrelevant, though. Like you, I always evaluate the source of my information. However, whether it's correct to do so or not, I place the greatest importance on whether or not they have been right in the past. In Mike's case, I have always found that he was correct outside of one isolated situation. He's a DD hound along the lines of Tonto. I do DD, but Mike's has always been orders of magnitude more thorough than mine. If Mike only speaks when he's got something negative to say, I don't know what that might mean. The fact that he's almost always been right, though, is exactly why I listen to him.