RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Psych and argonautgoldpsych01 wrote: Ok--absolutely, and this is a phoenix story if it happens---all we're saying, those of us who dare to be contrarian---whether it be our nature or nurture to be so--is that disucssions should be robust from both sides; what you say makes sense, the realities of the ups and downs in a mega project in a volatile sector. I have not sold, have no intention of selling and that's that. I think the Sclar person owns and I think his plain speak is excellent---sheep probably owns. Good luck IMO
psych have no problem with contrary views and voicing them to start a robust discussion, what i do have a problem with is how its done those two Sclar and Sheep throw out one liners especially sheep and then revel in the misfortune of shareholders that may be underwater for
the time being. the problem i had with your posts is that you admit that it was based on a gut feeling, others contradicted you with facts as tey are known (actual statements by company) ....
how do you have a fact based discussion with someone who makes statements made on gut feelings or believs those just turn into circular back and forths because the party just says ...well thats what i believe.
make you point, back it up with facts, keep the personal attacs out of it ( and yes i have hit back but have never thrown the first punch)