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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (10087)	4/10/1999 1:34:00 PM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Respond to of 14226

Larry, you take things much to seriously. <<share price bonanzas>> That was obviously a typo, it should have read share price bananas. I really enjoy Ed's practice of social science and psychiatry, hype is a terrible thing to waste. Global hasn't leveled with its shareholders on the definition of what screened head ore consists. Until it does, all those numbers are bullshit squared. Why do you even try to have a rational argument with Ed? I'm not sure he's capable of rational consideration, just rational hype. Let the ignorant sleep in peace. Should we start the 35th chapter of the GPGI jokebook?

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (10087)	4/10/1999 4:01:00 PM
From: Scott Wheeler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

<< Message 3871128 >> Thanks for the link, Mr. Brubaker. That statement happens to be pretty close to perfect and pithy, and IMHO only guilty of foresight. You can choose to believe that Ed's 3/28/98 post was made in good faith or bad as you may (and apparently do) choose your own method of exercising the First Amendment according to your own standards of taste and fairness. BTW, the same ethic allows me to have an opinion of your opinion and it is this: If I judged by your last post alone, I'd say that accusing EF of deliberately writing misleading letters to other Global stockholders was ignorant and unfair. However, if I based my opinion on the bulk of your letters to this thread over time, I should have stronger indictments [please note the subjunctive tense]. Tell me: Do you really sincerely believe that Ed was lying then? Or are you just taking advantage of a juicy opportunity to posture and perform your brand of gratuitous flaming? Can you look back over your past posts and show us when you've had anything to say that wasn't disagreeable and fractious? If so, please post one of those links - I'd be very happy to modify my opinion. In the last analysis, it doesn't matter what Ed's opinion, your opinion or mine was, because there will be roles to play and masks to wear - some of us will be "winners" and some "losers" in the game of intelligent hindsight. But I think it does matter how we treat each other here during the game. I vote for respect for differences of opinion - what do you vote for?