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: Zeev Hed who wrote (10093)	4/10/1999 7:39:00 PM
From: Thor Carlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Zeev, I believe the in-fighting from fellow peers was the beginning of the end for the Roman Empire. If I were a GPGI employee and I also new my history then I would post something pretty damn quick. I also believe that Harry Roberts post, re-quoted by Doug AK, was an excellent opportunity for GPGI to respond to some of the most legitimate questions to date. I would like to see that post - posted between every 10 posts from now on until answered. I think the questions he asked should be numbered and given a check mark for each one acknowledged by GPGI and a double check mark for one's answered. I for one am wondering if Harry's post was gladly lost in the bowl of Roman Soup. They would be some tough questions to answer for a company that was not trying to come clean. Or fairly easy for a company that has it's share holder value part of it's mission. Thor If this is the hanging, then I think people have the noose around the wrong neck. p.s. There is a war on people, get a gun and move to Kosovo.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (10093)	4/10/1999 7:47:00 PM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Zeev, I have some money to gamble, and would appreciate it if you will supply some direction. I will ofcourse take all responsibility for my own actions and the resulting outcomes. I have stated that I will not invest into any more desert dirt stocks because of my IPM experience, but this will just be a quick in and out, like a day trader, but I will go in the middle of next week and get out no later than 4 weeks later. Just playing the market for a quick profit or lost or break even. Amount cash = $6,000 To be split up evenly over each stock selected. My initial list contains two: MXAM (Maxam) and this GPGI. I may or may not use these two after reading you reply. My selection of these two are like a win/loose or a loose/win based on the Richard Effect of always being right or always being wrong in these desert dirts. So Richard says mxam=yes and gpgi=no, so for sure one will be a winner, and time will tell which. So, please, if you so choose, include any others you see as a quick up in price 4 weeks from today. I'am looking for big multiples, so under one dollar if possible. I may or may not use your input. Also, I agree with your comments on freedom to post. Just so long as the SI rules are followed anyone can post anytime anything in any amount they choose. The SI Police can be called to determine violations. For a threader to try and "police = control" outside the legal stucture is a sure way to be drawned into a trap by those wishing to cause damage. thanks Doug

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (10093)	4/10/1999 9:27:00 PM
From: Scott Wheeler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 14226

<< I do not see where owning the stock or not has anything to do when following the stock >> Zeev, what I said had nothing to do with following stocks whilst not being an owner. I asked: << why would someone with no apparent financial interest in a company get into acrimonious arguments on that stock's discussion group? >>. I was referring to the (apparent) discrepancy between their financial dis-interest and their vehement and emotional disputatiousness. I opined that this contradiction might suggest a different motive was involved, other than just disagreeing with arguments that (one would have imagined) should have had a neutral effect on them. The Bard said it much more eloquently: "Methinks [they] protesteth too much".