SI
SI
discoversearch

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
Orbite Aluminae
An SI Board Since October 2011
Posts SubjectMarks Bans Symbol
6560 168 0 EORBF
Emcee:  Rex Havoc Type:  Moderated
Introduction Market Data Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
4985Can't take the loss on transfer into your RSPVisionsOfSugarplums15/16/2013
4984sphinx, If the share price continues to erode, but I think the company still haMark Bartlett-5/16/2013
4983The analysis of this company is positive for technology but negative for financiSphynx25/16/2013
4982Interesting article in today's Globe regarding Federal Government Venture FuDetective-5/16/2013
4981 Dear Detective, Thank you very much for your post, indeed my last post was somZoelti-5/16/2013
4980Anyone else getting weird level 2 quotes on ORT?Mark Bartlett-5/16/2013
4979I would suggest once the bonds began trading entities may have jumped at the oppDetective-5/16/2013
4978Khareema, Again -- I am in agreement. I started to question my sanity when I sMark Bartlett-5/16/2013
4977The biggest reason they upped the total cost by 30 mill was because they had to khareema-5/16/2013
4976Just a thought as I see that emotions are getting high and I read the word "Zoelti25/16/2013
4975Khareema, That includes the new calcinator -- correct? That is how I read it. Mark Bartlett-5/16/2013
4974The decision to take it from 3 t/day to 5 t/day, resulted in total construction khareema-5/16/2013
4973I disagree with that guy, looks to me like the company needs to raise more moneyVisionsOfSugarplums25/16/2013
4972ThanksMark Bartlett-5/16/2013
4971From the Mackie "HOLD" Report, pg 2: " There is no reference in morongobill-5/16/2013
4970Any one seen Mackie's downgrade to hold with .92 target posted on stockhouseSultan-5/16/2013
4969I have been rereading the report trying to determine that point, and am still a khareema-5/16/2013
4968Has the new equipment/calcinator been paid for? I thought it was but just wantedEchofox-5/16/2013
4967From a TA standpoint we need a big bullish hammer on huge volume, maybe a green Sailing2-5/16/2013
4966Yeah, it's because of some of his posts like this one that it took me a longgegetrane15/16/2013
4965It's antoninus.altior-5/16/2013
4964antoninus the post is below; no need to un-ignore the guy; Q1 was going to be wlidl515/16/2013
4963altior, pls give me the name of the poster since he must be on my ignore list. Igegetrane-5/16/2013
4962last buy at .90 .. no more money .. keeping the house this time. This is the reaBitterSalt-5/16/2013
4961I'm with you verjam. Though it's painful and quite scary.gegetrane-5/16/2013
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News