Thu, Oct 23, 2014, 9:59 AM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 6 hrs 1 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Rubicon Minerals Corporation Message Board

bogfit 119 posts  |  Last Activity: Oct 21, 2014 12:24 PM Member since: May 31, 2002
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Obama response to Ebila

    by contrarian2001 Oct 16, 2014 8:28 PM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 21, 2014 12:24 PM Flag

    " I sure hope it's warmer than that day we went to the springs."

    Ah, you wienee, you sat half out of the water most of the time as I remember. LOL Just remember my friend that in the long run we're all dead. I retired at 57 and haven't regretted it a bit. Besides you've got the collector coins to keep you busy, even if opportunities in gold seem a long time ago. Hope your health holds until you can stretch out on some beach somewhere and soak up the rays!

    Regards,
    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Obama response to Ebila

    by contrarian2001 Oct 16, 2014 8:28 PM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 17, 2014 10:59 PM Flag

    Sounds like you're working too hard. Gotta take time to stop and smell the dead fish!

    My daughter the Hollywood photographer is flying in next week and we're planning a drive down to Markelville to soak in the hot springs and hopefully photograph the aspen gold in the passes. I called the Deli to see when they would be closing for the season, and it's the NEXT DAY. It will be the first time I've been back. Will think of you when sitting in the water glazing up at the tall Sierra pines swaying in the crisp mountain breeze. Oh give me a home, where the buffalo ... LOL

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Obama response to Ebila

    by contrarian2001 Oct 16, 2014 8:28 PM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 17, 2014 12:38 PM Flag

    Sure, it's a pattern I call the Blue Sky Suckerfish. Works best with a lot of hype and agitation. Whenever it starts to sink, simply jerk the line until you can just see it near breaking the surface, before it sinks again.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Obama response to Ebila

    by contrarian2001 Oct 16, 2014 8:28 PM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 17, 2014 11:38 AM Flag

    Got you hooked! LOL

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Obama response to Ebila

    by contrarian2001 Oct 16, 2014 8:28 PM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 17, 2014 10:45 AM Flag

    Hey Contra, Did you ever fish those salt water flies I gave you? Any luck?

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • What I want to know is why are these "state's rights", "small government", "local control" Republican politicians demanding the resignation of the CDC's director, and expressing a concern about a Texas hospital failing to properly respond to their Ebola patient? Texas Republicans have addressed the abortion issue by closing over have the clinics in the state, but how well do they supervise and regulate hospitals in that state? Not too good by appearances.

    Oh that's right, the Texas Board of Health is responsible to a REPUBLICAN governor. Of course the governor doesn't have sole responsibility, "The Office of the Attorney General protects Texans as consumers of health care." too.

    BTW - Republicans cut the CDC's budget and filibustered the nominate for Surgeon General for over a year. But what does that matter? Small gov't until you need it.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • bogfit bogfit Oct 13, 2014 5:53 PM Flag

    Really? It was posted on this board that the Fib point was identified according to a mathematical formula calculated by a middle age Italian mathematician, Leonardo Fibonacci. Maybe the reason I "don't get it" is because you're talking out of both sides of your mouth, you make up "it" up as you go along, and I prefer something that is REAL, i.e. Fundamental analysis. I have no use for technical Art, or whatever you call "it". But here's an authority's take on Technical Analysis -

    Technical Analysis: Introduction
    By Investopedia Staff

    The methods used to analyze securities and make investment decisions fall into two very broad categories: fundamental analysis and technical analysis. Fundamental analysis involves analyzing the characteristics of a company in order to estimate its value. Technical analysis takes a completely different approach; it doesn't care one bit about the "value" of a company or a commodity. Technicians (sometimes called chartists) are only interested in the price movements in the market.

    Despite all the fancy and exotic tools it employs, technical analysis really just studies supply and demand in a market in an attempt to determine what direction, or trend, will continue in the future. In other words, technical analysis attempts to understand the emotions in the market by studying the market itself, as opposed to its components. If you understand the benefits and limitations of technical analysis, it can give you a new set of tools or skills that will enable you to be a better trader or investor.

    I tried to research "Technical Arts" as applied to the stock market but it seems that Google hasn't heard of "it" either. I guess the Internet doesn't understand "it" either.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • bogfit bogfit Oct 13, 2014 3:37 PM Flag

    Opinion? Really? I thought your chart represented empirical mathematical absolutes, now you say it is actually subjective which is the meaning of opinion. Let us know when you sell, unlike the Whiz I know that a trade is only successful when it's sold.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • bogfit bogfit Oct 13, 2014 1:48 PM Flag

    Really? So the Euro and Yen are then oversold? How does that square with their economic slow down and talk of an ECB QE?

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • bogfit bogfit Oct 13, 2014 1:44 PM Flag

    Your wallet should be on the "short leash"!

    Sentiment: Hold

  • bogfit bogfit Oct 13, 2014 1:43 PM Flag

    " I'm going to look for an opportunity to buy some puts on gold but ..."

    Sounds just like a gambler's bet to me. You don't offer any justification supporting that guess, just the usual hope and wishful thinking. Irresponsible, regardless if it pays or not. You're bound to hit one eventually.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    What the Wizard of Ahs was saying then

    by bogfit Oct 8, 2014 11:41 AM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 9, 2014 2:48 PM Flag

    You said what? ... which time?
    "...what I said it was, they excluded material where there wasn't enough drilling."

    Actually George excluded material that was based upon "experience from elsewhere in Red Lake and general observations on lode gold deposits", it says so in plain English! He included the actual drill results as that constituted as he stated "a review of project data".

    The point is that " In the opinion of the Author, based on a review of project data, experience from elsewhere in Red Lake and general observations on lode gold deposits,..."

    He obviously was censured for extrapolating from other mines and other deposits. They kept the material from the areas drilled and dropped the estimate from other mines. He says as much in the above quote. What difficulty are you having in understanding this basic fact? What he was doing, and what you have continued to do and repeatedly post, is not considered by industry standards to be a valid means of evaluating an ore body . In the end he may be proved right, after all none of us will know until it is drilled. I had stated on this board how his original estimate could still be correct even with the reported narrow veins at F2. A hypothesis that you scorned and ridiculed.

    I think I need to change your nickname to something slick and slippery. Have to think on that.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    What the Wizard of Ahs was saying then

    by bogfit Oct 8, 2014 11:41 AM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 9, 2014 12:52 PM Flag

    "I don't think they will be taking exception to the statement of geologic potential."

    You DID NOT say - I don't think they will be taking exception to a statement of a geologic potential. You said, " "I don't think they will be taking exception to THE statement of geologic potential." And THE statement of geo pot. was up to13 million oz.! They took exception, as I understand it, to THE geo pot. number because it was based on extrapolation from his experience with other Red Lake mines and not supported by drill results. Seems rather clear to me and I'm sure most others as well. IMO this is where you first got the idea that F2 was the same as Red Lake. P. George extrapolated from the other mines and you have consistently done the same since. When I tried to explain that it was irresponsible to assume that a nearby mine would necessarily have the same deposition of metal, you took it as a personal attack and started a disagreement that has lasted.

    Yet it is a fact that the geo. pot. was reduced by over 50%! Why? If there was no problem with his first estimate, then why did he make such a drastic reduction? I think it is obviously to all, except perhaps you, and you're too dishonest to admit you were wrong, that the original geo. pot. smacked of hype. Hype of course is something you are very familiar with after pumping the stock up and then trying to fund your retirement with on quick score. Here let me help you-

    April 4, 2011 -
    Summary of Material Change

    On March 31, 2011, the Company announced amended inferred mineral resource and
    geological potential estimates for its Phoenix Gold Project, F2 Gold System. The
    amended estimates are a result of the previously announced review by the British
    Columbia Securities Commission of the Company’s NI 43-101 technical report filed on
    January 11, 2011.

    (cont.)

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    What the Wizard of Ahs was saying then

    by bogfit Oct 8, 2014 11:41 AM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 9, 2014 10:26 AM Flag

    "But, if you examine the subsequent 43-101 issued by Mr. George that the BCSC accepted then you find that it still contained a statement of geologic potential. So, it wasn't that to which the BCSC took exception."

    You well know that a half truthful lie works best. Yes, the revised 43-101 DID contain a statement of geologic potential, but what you fail to mention is that P. George lowered his estimate from 13 million to 5 million oz. Would you like to include that now as part of you "PROOF" that BCSC didn't object to the higher figure? If BCSC didn't find the geo. pot. number inappropriate then why did P. George cut it by more than half?

    As usual you think cherry picking data and failing to disclose contradictory information that shoots holes in your argument passes for an intelligent and forthright discussion of the facts. It isn't! It is disingenuous at best, and at worse reveals a character flaw the size of the Grand Canyon.

    Wiz - WE AREN'T ALL THAT STUPID!

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    What the Wizard of Ahs was saying then

    by bogfit Oct 8, 2014 11:41 AM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 8, 2014 6:36 PM Flag

    "So, basically, everything I said in that post was correct..."

    Basically you dance around the truth. Not sure if it's a salty jig or just a square dance. LOL It was generally understood by those in certain mining circles (and posted on this board at the time) that it was George's geological potential that some took exception and issued the complaint to the BCSC. I myself have repeatedly supported his estimates, even offering an explanation for the reports of more narrow veins found at F2.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    What the Wizard of Ahs was saying then

    by bogfit Oct 8, 2014 11:41 AM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 8, 2014 12:03 PM Flag

    The ONLY reason you were "right" is because you were agreeing with me. Didn't you notice the "... yes (sic) it typically ...", That's right, you were agreeing with a post explaining that Rubicon was a l-o-n-g ways from production. Did you notice the date? 3 years ago! Now if I have time I will look up all the posts you wrote claiming that coarse gold wasn't a problem. At different times you've actually agree with both positions . Taking both sides of a debate I guess is how you make sure you're right all the time.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • I don't think they will be taking exception to the statement of geologic potential. That is clearly allowed by the 43-101 regs as long as the basis for the conceptual target is stated and the proper caveats are stated in the document and they were.
    Feb 14, 2011

    There is no data extant, anywhere, that indicates that P. George's original estimates fell outside the confidence intervals associated with inferred resources.

    Jun 17, 2012

    Personally, I think P. George was right and yes it typically takes years to prove it in an extreme high nugget effect deposit.

    Jun 15, 2012

    "... yes it typically takes years ..." Son of a gun, the Whiz was right after all. It HAS taken years.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    I wonder

    by stock_canines Oct 7, 2014 12:11 PM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 7, 2014 1:00 PM Flag

    I agree that $1.20 maybe remembered, what for is yet to be determined. Like I said in an earlier post the risk vs. pot. gain ratio is one that would cause me GREAT concern. Whatever gain one might realistically expect in RBY over the short term seems rather minimal at present. This of course is not meant as my opinion on the project's long term potential, which incidentally hasn't changed since I first bot. RBY a couple years ago. But looking at POG's current chart, those signals indicating of a bottom for gold and an uptick in PM stocks are simply NOT APPARENT AT THE PRESENT TIME. This may be the bottom for POG, like most others I don't KNOW which way the market will go, but as I have for the last 12 years weighting risk vs. gain is the measure I use to seek success.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Gold Breached $1,200; What Do The Charts Say?

    by bogfit Oct 7, 2014 11:36 AM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 7, 2014 12:49 PM Flag

    As usual, you miss the point.

    "Fibonacci analysis is ... not really about where it goes after those points get hit."

    Thank you. You just proved my point! WHERE IT GOES after hitting any target on any chart is WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT! Why else would anyone bother to do all the charting if he didn't think it would indicate the further direction of the market? Just for fun? That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on a gold board.

    "But, I guess you'd say ..."

    Back to your basic dishonesty by pretending to mind read and then with typical hubris presuming to having license to speak for others. I think we all have the ability to express our own thoughts in our own words and don't need any help from the board's biggest loser. (no one else has reported greater losses on RBY than you). Trust me I have no difficulty in expressing myself. If you got your foot out of your mouth you wouldn't have so much difficulty yourself, but in the end you finally disregard the truth of the matter -

    "The only place opinion really comes into it is deciding what time frame to do the analysis over.

    Really? When I conclude you are incapable of understanding, judging by the ignorant statements you have made, you then make another that is even more ridiculous! The only place subjective opinion influences an investment decision is timing of review? Nonsense! What every real investor (perhaps not a gambler like yourself) wants to know is market direction. Will a stock go up or will a stock go down, that alone determines whether to buy or sell. Timing of review has nothing to do with when to execute a trade. But I'm not surprise you can't comprehend this basic fact of investment reality since you have so little actual trading experience.

    Maybe you should stick to poker, you can't be worse at that.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    I wonder

    by stock_canines Oct 7, 2014 12:11 PM
    bogfit bogfit Oct 7, 2014 12:20 PM Flag

    They probably saw POG's (second) triple bottom, and it scared the heck out of them. If I owned any gold stocks (but I don't) I would definitely sell NOW. Whatever up tick I might miss is insignificant IMO compared to the risk of losses due to a major downturn in gold.

    b.

    Sentiment: Hold

RBY
1.0991-0.0009(-0.08%)9:58 AMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.