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 : Royal International Venture RIL.V (was Labrador Int'l LAB) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tommy D who wrote (871)	5/15/1998 9:01:00 AM
From: Winer	Respond to of 3380

Tommy: Nice try! Looking at this in a bit of reverse order: In your response you said: I did not as you assert suggest that you saw something wrong with the company but rather asked if you saw something fundamentally wrong with the company. Tommy, I am sorry to be the one to have to inform you of this but this statement above indicates you think that you asked a question. A question, of course, ends with a question mark, and there was no question mark after that sentence in your original post. The original post states: Are you saying there is something fundamentally wrong with this company. Although not a question, your statement does imply that the hypothesis "there is something fundamentally wrong with the company" can somehow be attributed to some statement I made. This 'strategy' of pigeonholing may be an effective way to sell used cars but it doesn't work here. When confronted with transparent errors in argument like this I reject the hypothesis. As far as your 'question' is concerned, assuming that some version of the analytic/synthetic distinction can be defended so as to make it meaningful to continue distinguishing between matters empirical and conceptual (roughly, a statement is analytic just in case its truth is determined solely by virtue of the meanings of the words used to express the statement); when it is a matter of asking what is up with the Lab puppy, my proper tools are logic are semantic analysis, which means that I am essentially restricted to asking whether your statement about me is a meaningful and coherent one, and hence logically possible. To proceed any further, I must draw on whatever you take to be synthetic or empirical truths, the production and assessment of which is hardly the exclusive province of your apparent knowledge, especially when it is a matter of the Lab puppy. So, Tommy, I would suggest that you work on your punctuation and feigned indignation.