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 (52961)	10/29/1998 6:41:00 PM
From: Joe Master	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 55532

Just because someone does not have any personal data on thier profile does not mean that they are hiding from anyone. Becuase you put all your personal data out there does that make you an exhibitionist? I have nothing out there on mine becuase I prefer to choose who I tell these items to.

To: Just My Opinion who wrote (52961)	10/29/1998 10:19:00 PM
From: I Am John Galt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

Allen, I have already told you what the difference is between field experts and situation experts. To say that a field expert is more qualified to judge why Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield's ear than Mike Tyson himself, is absolutely ludicrous. You knew NOTHING about them at the time. What does that have to do with the proclamation of Riley G being a self-proclaimed situational expert (although probably not using those terms), in which he discusses the countless hours of studying and thought that went into his decision to begin this short squeeze? I present to you, allen, that there are two things that can give license to people being experts. The first is qualifications (ie, certification, experience in the field, etc.). The second is situation. Riley G was(and I am not talking about the offline Riley G), for all intents and purposes, a situational expert. He knew this situation better than most people, which automatically deems him as somewhat of an expert. Regardless of whether he actually knew this situation better than let's say, you, is irrelevant; the fact that people put money into this stock shows that people actually thought he did know what he was talking about. But you say yourself, Allen, that the world doesn't work like this. People can't be deemed experts unless they are certified or have qualifications. Then I pose this question for you: Obviously, there were no fundamentals of this company, as evidenced by what took place. Why did people buy this stock? I reasoned that it was because of their faith in Riley G... there can be no other reason! Perhaps a few people had other reasons, but the bottom line is that there was a faith that held the main cartel together. Summing it all up...? You said the real world doesn't work like this. Then what do you classify RMIL under? Obviously some people deemed Riley G to be a situational expert (I defined the situational expert as a person who is an expert in any one circumstance), because they wouldn't have bought into this particular stock otherwise. People must not have had total faith in the field experts, who told people to stay away from this stock (including my broker at AG Edwards). But someone must've deemed Riley as an expert of short squeezes, or they wouldn't have followed him blindly into the fray. People that have nothing in their profile (for sure) may just be animated cartoons for all anyone knows. That's why I was very careful to distinguish between online personalities and personalities away from the computer. Can you not understand that I can only assess what I know? Here's a better way of looking at my point. Was Jesus classified as an expert in theology in Jerusalem during his time? Absolutely not, as the Pharisees thought he was a lunatic. Was he classified as an expert in the realm of his disciples? You bet your boots. :o) The Evil Dead