Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Hmmmm, is the fan pointed at the shareholders, or away from them?
Euthy, the writer’s sentiment is arguable, but then again so is your solution. Journalists cannot announce the happiness of mankind much, if at all. They cannot describe all the forks that are not stolen, or all the marriages that are not judiciously dissolved. Hence the complete picture they give of life is of necessity fallacious; they can only represent what is unusual. It is the one great weakness of journalism as a picture of our modern existence that it must be a picture made up entirely of exceptions. We announce on the front page that a man has fallen off a scaffolding. We do not announce on the front page that a man has not fallen off a scaffolding. Yet this latter fact is fundamentally more exciting, as indicating that that moving tower of terror and mystery, a man, is still abroad upon the earth. That the man has not fallen off scaffolding is really more sensational; and it is also some thousand times more common. But journalism cannot reasonably be expected thus to insist upon the permanent miracles. Busy editors cannot be expected to put on their front pages, “Mr. Wilkinson still safe,” or “Mr. Jones, of Peoria, not dead yet.”
Appreciate your posts,
d
Not a joke, just speculation.
GLTY
Generals killed:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/uniongenerals.htm
http://www.civilwarhome.com/confederategenerals.htm
Point taken, though there are honorable folks in most walks of life.
Thanks. eom
Fair enough, and no apology is necessary.
1. Who are you calling estimable - Okham (if you do not know what the word means, you can look it up on the Internet at no charge).
2. Distressed ladies to rescue - you cannot go looking for an adventure, rather, an adventure must find you (think about it)
3. Kipling or Thackery - A paraphrase, I will admit, probably does not do them the justice that they deserve, and for that I apologize. I refer to them on occasion because, well, they are estimable.
4. I like to think both - good. Now to the point: have you constructed any models based on his theory of parsimony, specifically concerning this stock.
TIA
Not to you. BTW, are you a practitioner or admirer only of the estimable Okham.
TIA
I’ve grown rather fond of some of these “bashers.” Some are shareholders merely looking out for their investment; some are educators; some promoters. Mr. Webb, for instance, is one of the latter. He is promoting his business, which, in effect, is “bashing.” What is amusing is that someone with his talent (can we call it the “JS” talent?) would devote so much time to penny stocks. They are, after all, easy targets, and bashing them requires little courage (as opposed to say, “bashing” Merk). However, they do offer a salutary effect on one’s track record, and promoters need to keep their win ratio above fifty percent in order to avoid losing subscribers.
Now I am not one of those that subscribes to the theory that “bashers only bash good stocks;” and I am not sophisticated enough to develop a sentiment indicator that would alert me to good bashing opportunities; and I am sure that as soon as one is developed good contrarians would construct anti-bashing indicators. I rather believe that bashers need volume. I do not mean trading volume here (although that helps for obvious reasons), but posting volume. Take a look at IHUB boards and you will find another penny that has very little posting volume and a dearth of “bashers,” which is to say that bashers need an audience else their promotion is pointless. Or, to your point, some bashers have a vested interest in some stocks.
Besides, where else, in all honesty (except perhaps in the political arena) can one find a venue such as this? Where else can one be labeled “cult-like,” or “fascist” by like-minded folks? “Fascism,” by the way, is quite unsatisfactory don’t you think; for it rests not on authority but only on power; which is the weakest thing in the world. Fascists say, in effect, “We may not be the majority, but we are the most vigorous and intelligent minority,” which is simply challenging any other intelligent minority to show that it is more vigorous. As for being cult-like, well lets put it to the test. I propose that the cult leader issue the following proclamation: All followers will henceforth speak and publish only in pig Latin and only on this board. It will not take long to discover how much genuine power this leader has, nor how many devoted followers.
Evil, are you talking about Islamic zealots, or, oh wait, I see, never mind.
Start with the big picture then slide into the specifics.
Enlighten me.
Thanks.
d
Thanks for the information. Do you think promotion then is necessary to keep the industry moving forward? Alternately, do you think promotion helps/hurts in the long/short term? Webb draws no conclusion about the benefits of promotion in his article.
Thanks again,
d
Trade, Mr. Webb opines "promotion is an important part of any mining play...." I suspect that he is correct, but am interested in your opinion.
TIA
I'm not sure that it does, but I'm too lazy to study it further. BTW, thanks for the link to the volume analysis, very interesting.
Fascist?
Zen, are you suggesting that someone is trying to corner the float?
TIA
LOL evil, I stand corrected.
We will forgive you for "pretention" (pretension).
Tom, Augustine had a rather startling philosophy, which I will put this way: be prepared to weep when times are good; be prepared to smile when things go wrong. In other words, be ready to laugh if you should happen to lose every dollar you have in this stock, and you will do alright. Madness is a disease of the humourless. Come back and laugh at us sometime.
Regards,
A gem. Thanks!
Regards,
Joking is so undignified...that is why it is so good for one's soul. ;)
Perhaps then we could agree that a man's good work is effected by doing what he does, a woman's by being what she is?
Regards,
Ah, but the deed has been done. Consider yourself marked!
Regards,
Skunks, I will defer to Mr. Kipling when, in an unguarded moment the truth suddenly descended on him and he said: "Any woman can manage a clever man; but it requires a rather clever woman to manage a fool." Ladies are distressed when they wish to be.
Regards,
And you sir, are close to earning a membermark for that acerbic wit of yours. LOL.
Regards,
Hence the duende, Mr. Derf. The vast mass of humanity, with their vast mass of idle books, idle words, and idle pleasures have never doubted and never will doubt that courage is splendid, that fidelity is noble, that distressed ladies should be rescued, and vanquished enemies spared. There are a large number of cultivated persons who doubt these maxims of daily life. The mark of a truly great man (and here I will paraphrase Thackery--badly, I suppose) is that he sees the common man afar off, and worships him. The great man tries to be ordinary, and becomes extra-ordinary in the process. But the small man tries to be mysterious, and becomes lucid in an awful sense--for we can all see through him.
Yikes! Mad, I appreciate your passion. The only advice I would give is to heed the words of the ever prescience Twain who stated: "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove lid again - and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more [either]."
Regards,
Madclown & Panther, I am sorry for the delayed response, and can only say that I do not follow this board as diligently as others (thanks for responding). I must say, however, that your litany, as cogent as it is (and I will congratulate you both for the compression), does not leave one the necessary room to swear to anything. To your question, Mad, I will say that I think this is a pink sheet stock with all the attendant baggage that usually goes with such. To Panther, I will state that I am not ready to swear that CMKX is not a scam. I will go further and suggest that no one on this board that I know of (perhaps you can enlighten me) has or is ready to swear that it is not a scam, despite assertions to the contrary. Conversely, I will state that no one on this board that I know of has or is ready to swear that it is a scam. Why?
The answer is because we simply do not know. That is, the belief that one holds as to whether or not it is a scam is mere opinion, and as such has no imprimatur of certitude.
I have certain knowledge that a triangle is a three-sided plane figure, and certain knowledge that a diagonal is a line drawn between nonadjacent angles in a regular plane polygon. I know that being three-sided a triangle has no nonadjacent angles. Therefore, I know with certitude that it is necessarily true that there can be no diagonals drawn in triangles. This knowledge is incorrigible and immutable (to put it more simply, I cannot imagine its opposite).
Now your opinions of CMKX may be true, but you should be willing to admit that they (your opinions) have a future in which they may undergo correction or alteration and even rejection. So I will posit the following: the reason you have so much difficulty in convincing the opposite side is because those that oppose you can imagine the opposite (i.e., it is not a scam), and until such time as they cannot, all conclusions are mere opinion.
Now concerning the reimbursement of shareholders for losses incurred. First, it should be noted that the statement could be as easily written this way: “Are you ready to swear that this is a scam…and then reimburse all those who were convinced not to invest?” While I applaud your efforts to warn the investing public of the dangers of investing in this stock, and by extension most other pink sheet stocks, I am of the mind that because some have a drinking problem does not mean we should shut all the taverns. More to the point, because some have a gambling problem does not mean that we must necessarily close all casinos. And it is really true to say that those who were most vociferously in favor of prohibition were not the teetotalers, but the bootleggers.
You see, that fellow Pedro has it right. He constantly updates his theory as things come to light, while cheerfully admitting that he is expressing his opinion. It is folks like him and like you that make this board interesting. Kudos to those that provide us with comic relief, and I will even admit to enjoying the amusing pontifications of JS (our resident expert on all things, from saints to sinners). Where else can one delight in the delicious irony of someone who states something along the lines of “My God, so and so spent two hours on Paltalk! What an ego they must have!” All the while breaking records for time spent on this board? ;)
Pantherj: Your post leaves open the question of whether or not you are ready to swear that this is a scam. I would appreciate any thoughts that you have concerning same.
Regards,
Possible answer:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4057241
;)
TFN, I was under the impression that they believe adamantly that they are way ahead of the CMKX'ers. LOL! Thanks for the response, enjoy your posts.
Regards
Added to my favorites. Thanks again.
Razor, not offended at all. I would suggest that I am several rungs lower on the ladder than that Pirsig fellow. Do you happen to remember an Austrian economist by the name of Von Mises? He wrote a book (in the thirties or forties I think) about ecomonics and praxeology entitled Human Action. Great book. I will explore further, but on first glance it appears Pirsig has taken up the mantle. Thanks for the heads up!
I have noticed that there is an anti-CMKX adopted hierarchy and if you stay on the board for a short period of time you can figure it out..., wouldn't you agree?
Skunksyard, I would only add (gently) that JS makes no effort "to present both sides so folks can choose," and there is no need to fret about her abscence here (She appears to have survived in all her glory on other boards). Most fundamental sceptics appear to survive because they are not consistently sceptical and not at all fundamental. They will first deny everything and then admit something, if for the sake of argument--or often rather for the sake of attack without argument. One should not assume that the sceptic has no bias; JS has a very obvious bias in favour of sceptisim.
Regards,
Precisely, Meeke (the next one might not fail). Hopefully Sterling will realize that Webb will most certainly use the past to needle UC (thereby implicating Sterling) by attaching the old cliche "the past is prologue to the future," which is utter nonsense in this case because it presumes that UC has imposed upon himself the status quo (which someone once defined as "the mess we are in") of years gone by. In other words, one would have to believe that UC stagnated at a certain point in his history, and refused to admit any new ideas or methods into his domain, hence he is doomed to repeat the past ad nauseam.
And hopefully Sterling will peruse the postings of Webb from which he can develop his own list of questions, thereby setting his own agenda. My response to Webb is not very useful in a debate, but here it is (in response to Olico's rhetorical question concerning why Webb was posting on IHUB):
Olico, one must applaud the effort of Lee Webb. Surely you must admit that he has laid out a series of facts in such a magnificently lucid and comprehensive way that they must have some dimming effect on the stars he finds in the eyes of some of the faithful. Where he fails can be found in the latter half of his exposition, namely in his simile, for following it to its logical conclusion can only lead to the canonization of SGGM:)
One must hope that Mr. Webb continues to pursue the facts as this saga, as he deems to call it, continues to unfold (a saga, of course, is any long tale of heroic deeds). And while this tales continues, we must be ever mindful of the process called "practical" (the attempt to rule merely by facts), has in its own nature the essence of all betrayal. We discover, as time passes, that facts, which seem so solid, are of all things the most fluid. As the professors and the prigs say, facts are always evolving; in other words, they are always evading or escaping or running away--and we would do well to have Mr. Webb chasing them for us.
As for posting on this board, one must once again applaud Mr. Webb (for his entrepreneurial spirit). He has, perhaps, deemed it a rather cheap way to draw more followers into his own cult (one might call it the anti-CMKX cult). Now before you protest, let me elucidate: a man may be sure enough of something to be burned for it or to make war on the world, and yet be no inch nearer to being a bigot. He is only a bigot if he cannot understand that his dogma is a dogma, even if it is true. Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition, and the followers of Mr. Webb are more than just a little dogmatic.
Olico, it never seems to occur to the controversialists that if, say Mr. X is really a man of intellect, the fact that he adheres to a dogmatic position proves exactly as much as the fact that Mr. Webb, another man of intellect, finds that he cannot adhere to the same dogma, that is to say (one must cheerfully admit), it proves precious little either way.
Olico, one must applaud the effort of Lee Webb. Surely you must admit that he has laid out a series of facts in such a magnificently lucid and comprehensive way that they must have some dimming effect on the stars he finds in eyes of some of the faithful. Where he fails can be found in the latter half of his exposition, namely in his simile, for following it to its logical conclusion can only lead to the cannonization of SGGM:)
One must hope that Mr. Webb continues to pursue the facts as this saga, as he deems to call it, continues to unfold (a saga, of course, is any long tale of heroic deeds). And while this tales continues, we must be ever mindful of the process called "practical" (the attempt to rule merely by facts), has in its own nature the essence of all betrayal. We discover, as time passes, that facts, which seem so solid, are of all things the most fluid. As the professors and the prigs say, facts are always evolving; in other words, they are always evading or escaping or running away--and we would do well to have Mr. Webb chasing them for us.
As for posting on this board, one must once again applaud Mr. Webb (for his entrepreneurial spirit). He has, perhaps, deemed it a rather cheap way to draw more followers into his own cult (one might call it the anti-CMKX cult). Now before you protest, let me elucidate: a man may be sure enough of something to be burned for it or to make war on the world, and yet be no inch nearer to being a bigot. He is only a bigot if he cannot understand that his dogma is a dogma, even if it is true. Bigotry is an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition, and the followers of Mr. Webb are more than just a little dogmatic.
Olico, it never seems to occur to the controversialists that if, say Mr. X is really a man of intellect, the fact that he adheres to a dogmatic position proves exactly as much as the fact that Mr. Webb, another man of intellect, finds that he cannot adhere to the same dogma, that is to say (one must cheerfully admit), it proves precious little either way.
Cheers,
Did you see JEFF bouncing around? Usually just camps out, but couldn't seem to make up his mind this go-around. TIA