RE: Investment knowledgewailer,
You call me a liar - give an example of what you refer to - one example will do. If you don't have the guts to back up what you say, it won't surpise me.
Now on to some of your comments. I'll skip over all your other assaults on my character, I could care less what a dweeb like you might think he knows about me, I'm only concerned what my family, friends and business acquaintances think - and on that count I'm not worried.
You tell me to keep my investment advice to myself, unless I am qualified to give it. Actually I am qualified to give it, but I wouldn't give specific investment advice to anyone on the basis of what I would know about them from a chat room. I've been asked by inbox what I would suggest be done in that line, and I have given some general ideas [for example some things to consider on how to rectify a bad decision to get into ISM based on some "urging" during the Spring 2007 promotion]. But even then, and with added details provided, I included the caution that I did not know enough of their circumstances to give any definite advice. Any commentary on investment philosophy or opinions have not been advice, they have been my opinion - I believe it is permissible to state opinions.
You say I mislead and misconstrue. That's quite a statement coming from someone that misuses his supposed knowledge of TA to suggest its buying time [never selling time]. And from someone that only posts one side of market depth, because he doesn't want to provide information that might prove detrimental to his position as a long. I'd say you're the one that's dished out investment advice, and that has mislead and misconstrued to support his agenda.
I don't know why you think the importance of a drilling rig is how new and shiny its looks in a picture. People in mining or oil and gas, realize that this equipment works in all weather and in rough terrain, but their interest is in whether it can do the job it was hired for, not in how pretty it looks. That particular rig is not a POS, and anyone that knew dick about it would not be too interested in what some limp wrist in loafers thought about it - because they know it can't be judged from the picture you saw. The reason I know the details is the person who took the picture you pasted and the one I pasted, inboxed me and told me of the coincidence of his photos being on the forum, how he came to take these photos and the fact that the rig drilled the Hart deposit.
I'm not particularly concerned with you "investment underlings" as you call yourself, but I wouldn't say I am the last guy anyone would go to for advice. There have been some on this forum, and some in inboxes who have mentioned that listening to some of the "other side" has prevented a potential disaster that would have occurred had they listened to you and the other pumpers - or that they wished they had paid attention when some critics pointed out the downfalls of this gem of yours.
I don't know what all your jabbering is about today's market action, "down 3%, 116K", is supposed to mean. Your take on all this stuff has been proven to be woefully inadequate since you bought in near the high - my calls since that time have been quite reliable - so what's your point?
LBE doesn't have a cash crunch, its doing things and requiring cash to do them - the cash they've spent has gone into assets. ISM is gradually using their cash and option hand outs to do a combination of adding some to their assets and some to the deficit. At December 31, 2007 LBE will have virtually no deficit and assets whose book value is supported by their cash generating ability. ISM has a substantial defict which grew by some $4 million last quarter, their assets are generating no cash, and have no immediate potential to generate cash, estimated market value is unknown because exploration has apparently not been sufficient to warrant NI43-101 substantiation.
You say you have "the" securities course. The CSI is "a" pretty elementary introduction to investment education - certainly not ranking distiction as "the" course. I haven't taken any CSI courses, and I don't make a point out of saying what my background is that might qualify me to comment on the things on which I comment. But I'll go this far - I'm not in the education field - but I have participated as a provider at a number of courses where those paying for the course required, as a prerequisite, designations far more senior than having "the" securities course. That may explain my reluctance to be in awe over your claim that you got good marks on the CSI course.
Those whose IQ I may have questioned have never been given a zero, they have deserved the comment because of their equally demeaning remarks to others. I admit to having belittled the ability of others to offer the opinions or advice they have given, but only after they had proven to have earned the derision. I feel no compunction to sit by without comment when someone pretends to have worthwhile commentary on drilling results - and includes references to data that is completely idiotic. Nor those that pretend to be capable of giving meaningful TA advice, and prove they aren't capable by placing their biased agenda ahead of "possibly" worthwhile analsis. Nor those who pretend to offer advice on options or warrant granting that don't even know which way the funds go on exercise.
I have no expectation of "snowing" anyone. I expect that if I have some valid points to make, it is likely the more mature, experienced and open-minded that will recognize that they may be worthy of consideration. For example, I have no hope of someone who thinks you exercise a $2.50 option and the company pays you to take the share, getting much out of any financial discussion. Nor do I expect that someone that thinks width is the opposite of depth, will understand some of the more complicated implications of measuring a resource.
And just for the record - you, and some of the other wannabees, are not snowing me or some of the other critics that comment on this forum - just in case you don't realize how amateurish some of your efforts appear to some that have just a bit more knowledge than you give them credit for - and in the field of expertise in which you are pretending to be qualified. When you're pretending to have vast knowledge of a subject that is really outside your expertise, even though you think you're only being heard by people less knowledgeable, pretend that an expert is listening in. A 14 handicapper may sound very impressive explaining his high fade to a bunch of duffers who never break 120 - but Tiger Woods may be around the corner just pissing himself at the hacker's arrogance.