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 : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cascade Berry who wrote (8218)	1/16/1998 7:01:00 PM
From: Larry Macklin	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

could someone please translate that last post for me? thank you larry

To: Cascade Berry who wrote (8218)	1/17/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: Jerry in Omaha	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Mr. Berry; Thank you for dropping the technical term "dead cat bounce" onto our thread. As an animal lover in general and a cat lover in particular I found the term very descriptive and an essential key for the decryption of the rest of your excellent posting. I have often wondered about the "root-stock" of of investors who thrive on shorting securities. By their metaphors you shall know them, eh? I, for one, would be interested in reading more descriptions of what kind of thinking one has to engage in when shorting stocks, more metaphors, please. I do not mind the presence of shorters on this thread any more than I mind re-introducing wolves into Yellowstone; they are essential components of any ecosystem, natural or economic. More on wolves in a subsequent posting. I am amazed at the level of intelligence this thread sustains, thanks in large part to contributions such as yours, particularly when you use terms like "paradigm"; as in, "Disagreements on WHAT THE CONSENSUS PARADIGM IS start to show up within the collective body of readers." You almost convince me that you actually have read the source book for the term "consensus paradigm," The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas Kuhn, pub.1961. In any dialogue we may share I shall assume you are familiar with this work. If the consensus you refer to lies within this thread I have to disagree with you. I believe most of us are working from the same model here. I believe consensus began to take shape last December as in my posting exchange2000.com where I said, " Before the market will be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, and we can all breathe a collective sigh of long overdue relief, both certification and proven economical recovery must take place." My reading of the thread indicates that this understanding constitutes the consensus here at the present time. If you are refering to the consensus of the investment community or beyond to the extractive raw materials industry, even to the world at large, then I agree with your premise. There is a shifting of consensus to deal with the in-controvertible facts Naxos is raising that indicates a classical Kuhn-esque paradigm shift. The old scientific model will not be able to withstand the emerging evidence brought forth by Naxos' soon to be pilot plant. Like a well choreographed ballet the movements of the paradigm shift occur as if they were blocked and staged for a theatrical performance. And like a theatrical performance the actors will have to act the part as written. It is my belief that we are in the throes of a major pardigm shift in the notion of economic wealth itself. It has been my observation that wealth flows in certain well organized channels and if Naxos has what it says it has, and further, if the Johnson Process works on ores around the world, the ensuing deluge will carve huge deep new channels of wealth. Before these channels become "organized" chaos will reign like white water. Only after chaos subsides will we have a new global consensus. In the meantime a consistent pace of certified numbers will go a long way toward stabilizing collective cardiac rhythms of the shareholders, I'm sure. Jerard P