What Ever Happened To.........

[sunrnr]

Feb 21, 2013 23:26:02 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Feb 21, 2013 21:57:19 GMT -5 sunrnr said:

mmhmm, I appreciate your efforts and intent. However, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment of MT being a great forum with much to offer to new investors and old hands. It used to be, but it is not now. If you look at all the threads, the only one with real information and value is the day trader thread. All others are no longer being posted to with the exception of those hijacked by a single poster or created as a diversion for entertainment.

All those with real expertise who used to post here have been perma banned, encouraged to leave or just plain gave up trying to impart useful information based on defensible information and fact.

Sunrnr, MT can be anything YOU GUYS want to make it ... except a free-for-all.  If you're not posting your expertise, and your knowledge, that's your decision.  It denies others who might learn from you that opportunity.  I don't know who you're talking about having been perma-banned.  There was one I can think of, but that was NOT OUR DOING.  We're not asking you to post like a bunch of pansies, but we are asking you all to maintain some civility in your postings, and that means ALL of you.  If you don't agree with someone, say so!  It's not necessary to demean, or name-call, or act the fool.  Disagree and state your valid reason.  Believe me, it's going to be me in here most of the time grabbin' you lil' horse thieves by the back o' yer necks, and I don't care to break my nails!  I'm not hard to get along with, but I do have expectations of adult posters.

Frankly, I think we can do this together.  We'll all have to be on board with it, and we're going to have a learning curve.  Still, I believe it can be done or I wouldn't bother.  All I ask is that you join me in trying to get things back on pace here.  If there are posters who simply can't get it through their heads that they're going to have to be a part of things and not the star, those posters might just have to pack their bags.  If we can work as a team to make Market Talk shine, Market Talk will, indeed, shine.  I'm willing to work with you.

Fair enough.

[mmhmm]

Thanks, sunrnr.  I really appreciate it.  I am trying (I know!  I can be very trying!), and I hope you guys will, too.   And the times, they are a'changin'

[frankq]

Feb 21, 2013 21:38:26 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

Feb 21, 2013 18:01:07 GMT -5 frankq said:

Once again, I point out obvious inaccuracies in a post he makes, then my posts are deleted and I'm banned from the thread. My issue is, we should be allowed to rebutt information that is incorrect and /or misleading in any post. Decoy has fucking diplomatic immunity to say whatever the hell he wants and then taunt us knowing we won't be able to respond. If you look at the post concerning the "lack" of gold he "quoted" you'll see that I simply said that he took the "info" out of context and omitted information to portray an untrue situation. Now the above post has been struck from his thread and I've been banned from responding to anything he says. Another invocation of the Moon Rule, where she decides it's hands off the Prima Donna. Show me in that post where I called him names or was over the top in any way...

what post(s) are you saying have been deleted? I personally haven't deleted anything of yours recently.

and you know, if 99% of you - decoy included- didn't insist on acting like effing juveniles, i wouldn't HAVE to lock you out of each others' threads! but no one can keep it to 'just the facts'. you gotta make it personal. sooooo, you get what you've earned, i'm afraid.

Moon, I didn't say anything juvenile, hatefull, disrespectful, or otherwise. I pointed out an obvious misquotation that everyone else that checked into it found as well. The issue that we have is that Decoy seems to be able to say anything he wants with impunity while the rest of us swallow it like tripe. I haven't even interacted with him much, but tiptoe over there and it's holy shit, time to intervine. I guess Mr. Nobody deleted my posts, because neither Virgil, mmhmm, or now you had anything to do with it. Whatever. We've been through this before. I don't know what this guy has on you people but it's gotta be good. That, or you guys share his mantra. I don't care what he thinks. I care when he spreads falacies on numerous threads. You state that I've made it personal and couldn't stay with the facts, yet you admit that you haven't seen the posts because you state no knowledge of them. You obviously have ESP then. The only person besides Decoy acting effing juvenile is you, and that smart ass Virgil. If I was trying to be a dick, I wouldn't have used the mod only feature as you wish. Reply #408 has the info you want including Decoy's "excerpt" and my response. I fail to see how my post was juvenile or sooo personal.

[mmhmm]

Feb 22, 2013 17:13:25 GMT -5 frankq said:

Feb 21, 2013 21:38:26 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

what post(s) are you saying have been deleted? I personally haven't deleted anything of yours recently.

and you know, if 99% of you - decoy included- didn't insist on acting like effing juveniles, i wouldn't HAVE to lock you out of each others' threads! but no one can keep it to 'just the facts'. you gotta make it personal. sooooo, you get what you've earned, i'm afraid.

Moon, I didn't say anything juvenile, hatefull, disrespectful, or otherwise. I pointed out an obvious misquotation that everyone else that checked into it found as well. The issue that we have is that Decoy seems to be able to say anything he wants with impunity while the rest of us swallow it like tripe. I haven't even interacted with him much, but tiptoe over there and it's holy shit, time to intervine. I guess Mr. Nobody deleted my posts, because neither Virgil, mmhmm, or now you had anything to do with it. Whatever. We've been through this before. I don't know what this guy has on you people but it's gotta be good. That, or you guys share his mantra. I don't care what he thinks. I care when he spreads falacies on numerous threads. You state that I've made it personal and couldn't stay with the facts, yet you admit that you haven't seen the posts because you state no knowledge of them. You obviously have ESP then. The only person besides Decoy acting effing juvenile is you, and that smart ass Virgil. If I was trying to be a dick, I wouldn't have used the mod only feature as you wish. Reply #408 has the info you want including Decoy's "excerpt" and my response. I fail to see how my post was juvenile or sooo personal.

If you'll take a look at Decoy's POST thread, you'll find out he isn't getting away with anything, frankq.  I've deleted quite a number of his posts and have edited at least one to remove a statement that didn't need to be there.  If you feel something Decoy says is incorrect, present the facts as you know them to be, frank.  There's no need to denigrate another person.  All you have to do is put the facts out there.  People who read can then decide for themselves based on what they read.  The posts I read of yours did exactly that.  I don't know which post was deleted, so I can't speak for that one, but I have no quarrel with those I saw that you have posted in the past couple of days.

[frankq]

Ok. Lets try it.

[mmhmm]

Thanks, frankq!  I really believe we can do this and I'd soooo like to see everyone back and posting!  I'll do a happy dance! 

[frankq]

Say for those that are still in defense of and support the b.s. GOOD LUCK TO YOU!



For the rest we simply GO BETWEEN THE LINES when we are doing our thing.


If others want to believe inaccurate GOLD reports and the rest of the b.s.,let them.

Ok, we'll try this again. Since your "excerpt", and my posting of the exact quote come from the exact same audit, then why is it that what you say is true and what I post, word for word from the SAME audit, is b.s.? How can that be? Just please explain how the same exact gold report can be accurate for you but inaccurate for me? I'm just asking a simple question.

[frankq]

Feb 22, 2013 17:39:50 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Thanks, frankq!  I really believe we can do this and I'd soooo like to see everyone back and posting!  I'll do a happy dance! 

Check out the question that I asked in my thread. Does that fit the definition of reasonable? Thanks.

[mmhmm]

I'll do it!  Give me a minute!

[mmhmm]

If it's Reply #437, I read it as reasonable.  There's a difference of opinion and you've asked for an explanation.  No name-calling and no put-downs.  I don't have a problem with that, frankq.

[frankq]

Ok. Thanks mm.

[mmhmm]

Thank you, frankq!

[moon/Laura]

Feb 22, 2013 17:41:28 GMT -5 frankq said:

Ok, we'll try this again. Since your "excerpt", and my posting of the exact quote come from the exact same audit, then why is it that what you say is true and what I post, word for word from the SAME audit, is b.s.? How can that be? Just please explain how the same exact gold report can be accurate for you but inaccurate for me? I'm just asking a simple question.

Q, i have gone back to the 18th in the security logs and i find NO posts of yours that have been deleted, either by you, or anyone else.

[moon/Laura]

are you talking about post 4795 in this thread?
notmsnmoney.proboards.com/post/1514125/thread

[frankq]

That's the one. I see it's back, unless it's some kind of glitch I'm not aware of, and I'm the first to say I'm no I.T. guy, it wasn't there the other day. That's why I cut and pasted ahams post in my thread. Glad it's there now.

[mmhmm]

When frankq said in "my" thread, I thought he meant this thread, moonbeam.  The above post is in Decoy's thread.  If you mean the post moonbeam has cited, frankq, that one isn't well-worded and is contentious.

[mmhmm]

Let me grab that post and bring it here, frankq.  I'll show you where the problems are, if that's okay.

[mmhmm]

The underlined portions are where I find problems, frank.  If one presents one's facts clearly, there's no need to call another person out.  Facts speak for themselves.



excerpt - Why is this so significant? As anyone with a simple calculator can discover, the Treasury department has just inadvertently admitted that rather than the official 8,133.5 tons the Treasury reports as the US’ official gold reserves, the Treasury’s actual physical gold stores at the NY Fed are a measly 466.57 tons! No wonder it will take the Bundesbank 7 years to repatriate 300 tons!

You are taking a lot of stuff out of context here Decoy. This is not a direct quote. The article states that the Treasury also stores gold in other locations including Fort Knox. Next time you want to "quote" something.....use the ACTUAL quote.   - This is pretty in-your-face, which isn't necessary.  It had been stated an excerpt was being used.  Probably better to say something like:  "Let's take a look at the entire quote so we get a better idea of what's being said."

Why is this so significant? As anyone with a simple calculator can discover, the Treasury department has just inadvertently admitted that rather than the official 8,133.5 tons the Treasury reports as the US’ official gold reserves, the Treasury’s actual physical gold stores at the NY Fed are a measly 466.57 tons! While the Treasury does reportedly also hold gold at Fort Knox, several reports have claimed that up to half of the US Gold is held at the NY Fed!

No wonder it will take the Bundesbank 7 years to repatriate 300 tons!

That is the ACTUAL quote. Not an "excerpt". This statement : Feb. 18, 2013 - Treasury Releases Results of NY Fed Gold Audit, Inadvertantly Reveals US Gold Stores Are Only 466 Tons! is untrue. Next time read the report your source is quoting....

In addition, the audit quoted above is from 2010/2011. Here is a piece from said audit courtesy of the U.S. Dept of the Treasury website. Take note of how many places are listed as gold depositories. Also note the audited amounts in each facility. The "source" the poster quotes states that the "vast" majority of gold is stoted by the Fed. That doesn't seem to be the case. Also, take note of the total 4 lines from the bottom. Looks like somebody's got some 'splainin to do.........   - This addition is unnecessary.  You've made your point without it.

[mmhmm]

Feb 22, 2013 18:08:06 GMT -5 frankq said:

That's the one. I see it's back, unless it's some kind of glitch I'm not aware of, and I'm the first to say I'm no I.T. guy, it wasn't there the other day. That's why I cut and pasted ahams post in my thread. Glad it's there now.

Since the move to V5, ssstttrrrraaaaaaange things occasionally happen, frank.  We gots ghosts, or sompin'!  Seriously, posts do occasionally go missing then show up again.  Others have complained of the same thing.

[moon/Laura]

Feb 22, 2013 18:08:06 GMT -5 frankq said:

That's the one. I see it's back, unless it's some kind of glitch I'm not aware of, and I'm the first to say I'm no I.T. guy, it wasn't there the other day. That's why I cut and pasted ahams post in my thread. Glad it's there now.

Well, it could be a glitch, i can't really say. i just knew i hadn't deleted anything, and i remembered seeing it at the time. it WAS a couple pages back..

[mmhmm]

I'd seen that post, as well, moonbeam.  It wasn't new to me.

[frankq]

Then all's well that ends well I guess...I appreciate the efforts.

[frankq]

So we are not allowed to discuss how we do our figuring?



And if we do not believe in the audits of the gold then we have to say we do just for the sake of it?

Of course you're entitled not to believe in the audits. All we're saying is that you can't use the same information to make your case, and then call the information unbelievable. That's exactly what you are doing here, and it's easy to see as compared in the previous posts. Anybody can access the Tresury website and check. They'll find what you said as well as what I said. The difference is that I provided a complete quote. Please take the time and show us exactly what you are talking about, because obviously, we're not seeing it I guess. The report runs about 12 pages. Maybe you can show us what page the specific info regarding Fed gold storage compared to total storage is stated as you posted. If we're missing it, then we owe you one.

[frankq]

Feb 22, 2013 18:18:56 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

The underlined portions are where I find problems, frank.  If one presents one's facts clearly, there's no need to call another person out.  Facts speak for themselves.



excerpt - Why is this so significant? As anyone with a simple calculator can discover, the Treasury department has just inadvertently admitted that rather than the official 8,133.5 tons the Treasury reports as the US’ official gold reserves, the Treasury’s actual physical gold stores at the NY Fed are a measly 466.57 tons! No wonder it will take the Bundesbank 7 years to repatriate 300 tons!

You are taking a lot of stuff out of context here Decoy. This is not a direct quote. The article states that the Treasury also stores gold in other locations including Fort Knox. Next time you want to "quote" something.....use the ACTUAL quote.   - This is pretty in-your-face, which isn't necessary.  It had been stated an excerpt was being used.  Probably better to say something like:  "Let's take a look at the entire quote so we get a better idea of what's being said."

Why is this so significant? As anyone with a simple calculator can discover, the Treasury department has just inadvertently admitted that rather than the official 8,133.5 tons the Treasury reports as the US’ official gold reserves, the Treasury’s actual physical gold stores at the NY Fed are a measly 466.57 tons! While the Treasury does reportedly also hold gold at Fort Knox, several reports have claimed that up to half of the US Gold is held at the NY Fed!

No wonder it will take the Bundesbank 7 years to repatriate 300 tons!

That is the ACTUAL quote. Not an "excerpt". This statement : Feb. 18, 2013 - Treasury Releases Results of NY Fed Gold Audit, Inadvertantly Reveals US Gold Stores Are Only 466 Tons! is untrue. Next time read the report your source is quoting....

In addition, the audit quoted above is from 2010/2011. Here is a piece from said audit courtesy of the U.S. Dept of the Treasury website. Take note of how many places are listed as gold depositories. Also note the audited amounts in each facility. The "source" the poster quotes states that the "vast" majority of gold is stoted by the Fed. That doesn't seem to be the case. Also, take note of the total 4 lines from the bottom. Looks like somebody's got some 'splainin to do.........   - This addition is unnecessary.  You've made your point without it.


mmhmm,

Ok, I think we might be picking some nits here with all due respect, but you're reading too much into it. The first underlined piece refers to an old rule that requires posters to use the actual quotes, not paraphrase, and footnote the source. That was supposed to be a haed and fast - no negotiation rule around here. The second underlined quote does not refer to Decoy, but to his 'source" Silverdoctors, where he got the info. The point, as I've tried to get Decoy to do for a long time, is to read the WHOLE piece before you use it. A reasonable person probably done that and deleted their post. Decoy is interesting, on the other hand, because even in the face of such obvious contradiction, he is able to hold his ground and spin it. Now it's a bogus report, never mind that he was using it to make his case yesterday. Truly a case study in human behavior. Jeez...it's not like I called him a liar......I think my response was pretty even and controlled. This is, after all, a forum of diverse personalities. We all have a style of our own. We should be able to express a little of it. Conversation without a little liveliness is like pasta without a gravy. If you guys can't let the dogs have a little slack on the leash, the walk isn't much fun for posters and readers alike. Just saying....

[mmhmm]

I agree we each have our own style, frank, and expressing it is fine.  I'd seen the above post and didn't edit or delete because it wasn't so far gone as to be egregious.  I just noted what might have been a little more thoughtful approach.  That said, a "little liveliness" is fine.  When it gets too "lively" it's gonna get gone.  Your gravy is someone else's wallpaper paste.  While it's great to post and have fun, when the insults and putdowns start flying, the only one having fun is the one pitching, eh?  Basically, what you might consider "a little slack" could, to me, be over the line.  Insults aren't going to be okay ... not now, and not ever.  Making fun of another's opinion isn't going to be okay, either.  Whether we like it, or not, we've got to give to get.  If we're all going to get along it's going to take cooperation and some give on all sides.

If, as you say was the case here, your comment is directed at the source of something, say that.  The way your post was worded, since you'd been talking to Decoy, it certainly would have appeared to be directed at Decoy, wouldn't you say?  It's a moot point, since the post wasn't deleted, and it wasn't edited.  It just could have been done with a bit more consideration.

[frankq]

Ok.

[frankq]

From the Gold thread........

Yes the old audits can certainly get the sparks flying!


Why without a 'Hands On' and shhh....listen....they are going to tell us how much there is,how many are actually in belief of such?


Here is a great old piece of homework and the naysayers to the realists should get a great deal from as so much more is now known.


That interest rate part is a real screamer when you start adding in the ingreadiants such as Big 'D' and LIBOR,


www.goldensextant.com/commentary18.html

So, I read through a lot of this, not exactly a short synopsis, and I can't seem to find anything in here that speaks of how much physical gold we have and where it is stored and in what proportions. In fact, I'm not seeing anything in here quantifying Treasury's holdings or even speaking about them directly. There is a lot of talk of foreign exchanging and market influences pertaining to values and such, but nothing I can find that speaks to the subject at hand. Since I assume that you have studied the material better than I, could you point out where this "commentary" shows us that the audit is incorrect and provides the necessary backup information supporting said claim? Thank you.

In addition, could you please answer the question posed in post #453? Thanks.

[frankq]

Could we unlock this thread to Decoy so that he can respond? I makes thinks easier for sure. You can keep me off his threads. Thanks.

[mmhmm]

Feb 23, 2013 9:24:27 GMT -5 frankq said:

Could we unlock this thread to Decoy so that he can respond? I makes thinks easier for sure. You can keep me off his threads. Thanks.

I'm going to check on that for you as soon as I can, frank.  Your post is great, by the way, and thanks for being willing to make the effort!

[frankq]

Wow! That was fast! Thanks mm....