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 : American International Petroleum Corp -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FoxyLoxy who wrote (9681)	4/4/1999 5:35:00 PM
From: DRRISK	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11888

Foxy, <<<<<<<<<<< I have no real way of judging anyones "trustworthiness" on this thread, but I can assess "believeability". And as far as motives are concerned, unless someone is blatantly trying to "promote untruths", what does it matter what motivates them to post. There are likely as many reasons as there are people posting. For whatever reason, it must satisfy some need. "I stand for chaos, and I will squash anyone who gets in my way" - am I credible or what? FoxyLoxy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are taking yourself too seriously and this is a ridiculously obvious discussion,IMHO. Maybe you have been hanging out with Razor too long, LOL. If you and he are short you have had a nice run cash in your chips and take the money and run. Have a nice Easter. DrRisk

To: FoxyLoxy who wrote (9681)	4/5/1999 10:09:00 AM
From: Ray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11888

FoxyLoxy (quoting a dictionary): <<credibility n : the quality of being believable or trustworthy>> Hmmm. Pretty harsh criteria to apply to Razor, I say. ;^) My "take" on the present discussion about credibility is that people who even appear to be insincere have little or no credibility to others. And, people who relentlessly put positive or negative spins on information, with little or no support for their statements, will certainly be taken to be manipulative rather than sincere. This is particularly true for those who refuse to state or are coy about their motivations. So, if you value your credibility, you had better make your motives known - and be strictly and fully informative (minimum of opinion) in your analysis (Razor and TaylorMill, among others, fail badly in this, IMO). In case there is any doubt, I am long AIPN (but not betting the ranch); and I want all the accurate information I can get about the company - positive or negative. If there are enough genuine and substantial negative facts about AIPN (relative to the potential gains), I will sell my shares. I am "in love" with the company only insofar as I admire companies that take risks and succeed.