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 (9420)	7/20/1998 3:47:00 PM
From: Jerry Collins	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10836

Frank -- Just as I predicted, you and the noise makers are here to help distract from the issue at hand, which is Crystallex and the Internet promotion surrounding it. Whenever you decide to talk about KRY, Stockwatch's coverage of KRY, or respond to the information in my postings, I'm happy to participate. Your other concern can be taken to a freedom-of-speech chat site where, if I can find it, I might be tempted to discuss it with you. I am not "persecuting" Roy Carson. I am merely calling up his past investment advisories, touts and assorted nonsense, and holding them up for re-examination now that events have unfolded (in particular, the much-commented on court case is now decided). Mr. Carson does not like light shined on his past published work, and I don't blame him. (The only time I came close to "persecuting" him was when I called into doubt his claims to have been "network news editor" of a London news agency in the late-1980s. I had challenged him to provide just one example of where he had held a single full-time position in journalism. I phoned the agency and his old boss, managing director John Perkins, denied he held that position as a staff member. Roy's contribution to the agency was as a stringer from Scandanavia, sending the odd item about elections and Volvo's earnings; Mr. Perkins couldn't remember the town in which Roy was based.) Anyone, especially journalists, should be reasonably happy to see their past words reproduced. For instance, I'm still awaiting word of where Stockwatch's reporting is so . . . erroneous and full of "disinformation." So far, I've conceded to making two errors, which are fixed. Granted, these chat lines are a different matter, and it is easy to make mistakes or get caught up in the hype and enthusiasm, as Frank Lostracco seemed to have been last summer. Here's a post of Mr Lostracco's under his pseudonym Tanoose, on Stockhouse: "Based on 9,000,000 oz's/au you could place a valuation of around $36.00/sh for KRY, If the deposit holds upwards of 20,000,000 oz, as is speculated, then it would we be safe to say that KRY would have a value somewhere around $50.00-$60.00/sh." In your case, I'd imagine it is a case of an inexperienced investor simply getting caught up in the hype and wishful thinking. In the case of others, who are more persistent and more imaginative with their pro-KRY claims, it can come to be viewed as something more serious. Furthermore, the work of someone who calls himself a journalist is automatically held to a higher standard and must be able to defend his reporting or admit to his mistakes. Many forum participants have said they viewed Mr Carson's reporting as not only factual and accurate, but the difference between buying KRY and not buying KRY. In addition, many investors may have believed his advisory on the day of the court's decision, June 11, that no decision was due that day. For them, it was the between selling and riding the stock to the gutter. Jerry Collins CSW

To: tanoose who wrote (9420)	7/20/1998 6:14:00 PM
From: Sawdusty	Respond to of 10836

<<n this artcile posted this AM on Stockhouse by Dr.Doom, is the person in question your father, a simple answer to all here in the Queens English would suffice.......either yes or no??>> Respectfully Frank, what possible difference would it make? I cannot see where this is related to KRY. If we apply the sins of the father, at what point will the line be drawn? Should we say any relative in the past 100 years should be checked out? Or should we go further? IMO the attacking of the messenger rather than the message, lends no strength to to any side, regardless if they are for or against Roy Carson. Believe me Frank, had it been someone saying the same to you, I would have responded in the same fashion. Sorry people, just had to say it.