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 : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tanoose who wrote (6924)	3/17/1998 5:39:00 PM
From: Moot	Respond to of 10836

Old Arguments, Etc., Frank: Let me begin by saying that I am not completely insensitive to some of the compliments that have been directed toward me recently. By the same token, I'm not immune to some of the barbs--primarily from another quarter. To this point, I have deliberately refrained from directly acknowledging either. For the first and hopefully only time, I will say that I do not appreciate the insults and I do appreciate the compliments. I get the greatest satisfaction, however, from those posts that recognize a point I have tried to make and disagree or agree with it, offer reasons or arguments, provide additional information, or suggest a different perspective. As for my writing style, it is what it is. I find no fault with your own. I am disappointed with your assessment that my posts have simply been re-hashing old arguments that have already been presented to the Court. If that is the case, either I'm being particularly obtuse or I haven't seen a substantial amount of documentation that would justify your claim. I will admit that a substantial portion of my first post dealt with the first ruling. It was an attempt to establish the chain of reasoning and delineate the scope of the ruling. You subsequently pointed out that this was history, and I agreed. In my post concerning Baumeister & Brewer and Dr. Corredor, I returned to the scope of the first ruling in the context of the claims those two legal opinions offered. If the Court had already heard those arguments, I am at a loss to understand why they would have even been included in those two legal opinions. I went on to raise some questions regarding the motivation for the dismissed waiver request, the Mael/CVG 'agreement', and to offer some comments regarding the two legal opinions and legal opinions, more generally, among other things. In short, I think I moved beyond the water-shed first ruling and the subsequent two rulings that dealt only with the legal/administrative consequences of the first. I read Andy's post with interest and appreciation. (We are a culture-bound lot, aren't we?) Whatever the ruling regarding these 11 motions, I think there will be additional legal and administrative consequences that will have to be sorted out. I will concede that KRY has been a very interesting play and that many have profited from it thus far. Much depends on your investing philosophy and style--and timing, of course. With respect to Mr. Linares, his credentials and record are indeed impressive. He is not, however, infallible. As I recall, some time in the early fall Mr. Linares was reported as saying he expected a decision with the month. (Once again, I've entered the dangerous region of memory.) However, success in Court is what will count in this matter and Linares has certainly established himself there. Regards.