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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (34265)	9/25/1998 10:31:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Respond to of 35569

I almost scoulded you because I have been reading GPGI and thought were talking about over there! Then I realized I was at IPM thread. Home of Military Aircraft Conversations, am I getting closer to Jackass? Bet your bippy. But actually, in reading some of Jackson's stuff, I did learn a lot. Information and thye way it is taught in this world is changing, and that is one reason why Mining will change with this NEWTECH MININg and we will have to wade thru the old to sort and sifft and pan both some of the old and some of the new. It is amazing that he didn't show up for this, is EC back, maybe they said to themselves. The heck with them, they are dead. Or they are upset with banning from SI Administrators who just might of said something. I have no clue. Just gut says NEWTECH mining needs thius forum, and we actually need the Jacksons and the Tims....in the whole picture. JMO Chuca PS: techstocks.com OOOPPPS: post #5757868 click:( Maybe sometimes my openness should be selectively...closed!) <<..marcos, you said:" Wizzer, thanks for pming me those two posts of Eric's - I had seen them, and flinched in amazement then - I quite agree, the man can be an absolute idiot at times, he seems to have a tendency at times to seek attention by making his points in an inflammatory manner." -emphasis added There can be no question about that. In fact, there never was a question about that. I would like to ask you a different question. That is, after having reviewed the above referenced pm, DO YOU consider the posts to be, either harassing or libelous or invasive of another's privacy or abusive or threatening or harmful or vulgar or obscene or tortuous or improper or otherwise objectionable?>>