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: Deep Throat who wrote (7303)	3/22/1998 8:05:00 PM
From: marcos	Respond to of 10836

Very likely, along with "Cui bono?", et id genus omne. Moot was pretty clear about not drawing parallels with Eagleson; "I am not suggesting that any Crystallex insiders are cut from the same cloth as Eagleson. I am just pointing out that access to wealth, power, and prestige are not necessarily indicators of integrity." ..... Dominus vobiscum ............... marcos

To: Deep Throat who wrote (7303)	3/22/1998 11:22:00 PM
From: Moot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10836

Errare humanum est. Deep Throat: You directed a legitimate question to me that deserves a response. I see that Marcos has offered a response including an excerpt from the paragraph to which you refer but if you are dissatisfied, I would prefer that you be dissatisfied with my response rather than one offered on my behalf. (I mean no disrespect to Marcos and probably would have raised the same point.) I am not sure exactly what 'unnamed logical reasoning' you are referring to but I am sure that I did not question the integrity of Crystallex's board. What I did do, and thought I was quite clear about doing, was expose a fallacious argument that had been circulated on the internet and continues to be circulated as late as today. I briefly stated the argument that I was refuting in what I thought was a generally accessible manner and provided a particular example that showed this argument was not sound. To further ensure that my purpose was understood I made the statement that Marcos has already offered in response. I suppose I might have done more. If I had been so inclined, I could have defined the universe of discourse, translated the argument I was challenging symbolically, done the same with the falsifying particular and the conclusion, and presented it all in the form of first order predicate calculus with identity. I don't think I'm reaching when I say that I doubt too many people would have easily grasped my point. I suppose I might have expressed it all in a more conversational manner, so to speak. I opted for something in between formal argumentation and chat. Perhaps I erred. I often do. I am sure that most people who read this thread and others do not for a moment believe that people who are wealthy, influential, and so on, simply do not commit unethical or illegal acts. If this is so, I have a hard time understanding why it is that they seem willing to accept this pap when it appears on a stock forum. I want to attempt, one last time, to make clear that I was attacking an argument in my post--not people. Si fallor sum. Augustine. An interesting precursor to Descartes, don't you think? Regards.