daniel22898's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/84719/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/37636-crystallexs-las-cristinas-contract-in-doubt?source=feed#comment-88022 88022 Thu, 07 Jun 2007 17:14:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/37636-crystallexs-las-cristinas-contract-in-doubt?source=feed#comment-87997 87997
I believe you still have not replied to my last request for evidence supporting your accusation against the KRY management that "...They hide cards up their sleeves, bottom deal and so forth...."

I almost couldn't stop myself laughing after reading your latest article on KRY and especially the responses from other readers. I wish to add one more comment that the way Mr. Raul Gallegos and you view and interpret the world is so very similar to our Attorney General Gonzalez on the issue of Habeas Corpus. I have to say very entertaining but with no substance. I copy a few paragraphs from SF Gate.com and paste below because I feel they are relevant to the way you and Mr. Gallegos operate:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
"
"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.''

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist -- a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

Later in the hearing, Gonzales described habeas corpus as "one of our most cherished rights'' and noted that Congress had protected that right in the 1789 law that established the federal court system. But he never budged from his position on the absence of constitutional protection -- a position that seemingly would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.
...
"

I rest my case.]]> Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:44:07 -0400
I believe you still have not replied to my last request for evidence supporting your accusation against the KRY management that "...They hide cards up their sleeves, bottom deal and so forth...."

I almost couldn't stop myself laughing after reading your latest article on KRY and especially the responses from other readers. I wish to add one more comment that the way Mr. Raul Gallegos and you view and interpret the world is so very similar to our Attorney General Gonzalez on the issue of Habeas Corpus. I have to say very entertaining but with no substance. I copy a few paragraphs from SF Gate.com and paste below because I feel they are relevant to the way you and Mr. Gallegos operate:

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...
"
"The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Constitution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution.''

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist -- a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

Later in the hearing, Gonzales described habeas corpus as "one of our most cherished rights'' and noted that Congress had protected that right in the 1789 law that established the federal court system. But he never budged from his position on the absence of constitutional protection -- a position that seemingly would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.
...
"

I rest my case.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/36811-crystallexs-speculative-shine-begins-to-tarnish?source=feed#comment-87397 87397
I have to say that my opinion about Mr. Bane's article and his intention remains unchanged. In fact, I get even more suspicious when he added his comments about KRY management being dishonest "...They hide cards up their sleeves, bottom deal and so forth...."

I am an individual investor. I have owned KRY shares for about 2 years. I have zero connection to any of the KRY employees, past and present. I am not here to defend the KRY management. They are all adults and I trust they can defend for themselves. My request is to ask Mr. Bane to present some evidence to back his claims about the KRY management. To me "Hide cards... Bottom deal" are serious accusations indicating someone is breaking the rules.]]> Thu, 31 May 2007 13:54:50 -0400
I have to say that my opinion about Mr. Bane's article and his intention remains unchanged. In fact, I get even more suspicious when he added his comments about KRY management being dishonest "...They hide cards up their sleeves, bottom deal and so forth...."

I am an individual investor. I have owned KRY shares for about 2 years. I have zero connection to any of the KRY employees, past and present. I am not here to defend the KRY management. They are all adults and I trust they can defend for themselves. My request is to ask Mr. Bane to present some evidence to back his claims about the KRY management. To me "Hide cards... Bottom deal" are serious accusations indicating someone is breaking the rules.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/36811-crystallexs-speculative-shine-begins-to-tarnish?source=feed#comment-87274 87274
Also agree w/ the_celt_beserk that you tend to pick and choose your sources including sources that have been proven unreliable and/or irrelevant.

And in regards to your speculative conjectures of what future Venezuela laws would be pass and how they might impact the companies profits seem one-sided. This is a rather complicated issue of what should be the proper formula for profits for private enterprises, and for the local people and government. Keeping my comment short, I would say that the signed agreement between KRY and the Venezuela is deemed fair for both parties, and there's no evidence showing either party would want to revoke the agreement.

Mr. Bane, why you wrote such a long piece filled w/ fear and skepticism just to tarnish one company? what's your ulterior motive?]]> Wed, 30 May 2007 13:06:44 -0400
Also agree w/ the_celt_beserk that you tend to pick and choose your sources including sources that have been proven unreliable and/or irrelevant.

And in regards to your speculative conjectures of what future Venezuela laws would be pass and how they might impact the companies profits seem one-sided. This is a rather complicated issue of what should be the proper formula for profits for private enterprises, and for the local people and government. Keeping my comment short, I would say that the signed agreement between KRY and the Venezuela is deemed fair for both parties, and there's no evidence showing either party would want to revoke the agreement.

Mr. Bane, why you wrote such a long piece filled w/ fear and skepticism just to tarnish one company? what's your ulterior motive?]]>