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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Just My Opinion who wrote (52951)	10/29/1998 3:14:00 PM
From: I Am John Galt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

If not, please just say you don't agree, leave it at that, and we'll both stop this line of posts. C'mon, JMO, you know I can't do that. Nothing is solved if that occurs, and it doesn't give you a good explanation of where I'm coming from. If I just said "I don't agree," and left it at that, it would not be fair to your understanding of where I'm coming from. Keep in mind, I've written analytical papers on you guys... i may understand your online personalities perhaps better than you." Now from this statement you are declaring that you are some kind of an authority I fail to see the connection between those two statements. You're talking about being an analytical authority on general personalities. I'm talking about understanding specific personalities. There was one link between all of your personalities, whether you had stock in this company or not. That link was the short squeeze. Notice my wording. I cannot make a judgement call on what I know to be your real personalities. All I can do is make an assessment based upon what of your personality I've been subjected to. The attorney's would not have you there as an authority, believe me. The line of questioning in this case would be this. "During your studies, did you come across x?" or "What, in your experience of this particular individual led you to believe y?" I think we're both coming at this at different angles... I would not be called in as a field expert. I would be called in as a character witness, which, if you want to view it in terms of an authority, obviously has some authoritative quality over the character of the defendant. Who has more validity? IMO, it is the person who actually experiences more of the specific situation. If you disagree with that statement, then there is an inconsistency with what you actually feel with RMIL, in which all the experts were saying that RMIL was a stock to stay away from, but all of the people that were close to the operation felt they knew more than the experts did.