> My thoughts on judging them are: look at their casino. > It has thousands of users who have placed millions of > bets, and the bets have paid off. What more do you > really need to know?
I'm not a gambler but if I were I wouldn't shrink from losing lots of gold at blackjack or roulette to them because I'd be a lousy gambler. > If they pay dividends, what else do you need from > them? Nothing really. But I do think the more you know about what you're doing the more apt you are to be sucessful at it. Granted, TGC looks ok to me. It's what I don't know that concerns me. I'm not judging. Maybe like you say there's nothing more to know. > financials, filings, 10Ks, annual reports, and > audit documents for, say, Enron, or, say, Worldcom. > With that kind of documentation, many people have > apparently felt comfortable betting a lot of their > future wealth. Not me for sure. I still remember the first glorious Enron commercial I saw. Great I thought. What's next flying Levis? It was obvious to me at that moment that Enron didn't exist in the way they wanted me to think they did. Or did they? I was getting the impression that they owned the whole energy market lock stock and barrel. I don't mind saying I thought the whole twenty seconds or so was a little over the edge. TGC seems to be leaning in the other direction. Plain and simple, no outrageous claims of greener pastures or whatever and it seems everyone understands their business to one degree or another. Now it seems Enron did everything wrong and one right move tripped them up. Could one unfortunate circumstance be the end of TGC? I never liked Worldcom either. A bunch a people yapping on the phone. It's enough to drive a person mad. I think they were all better of locked up at AT&T or whatever the name of the original phone company was. Wait a minute, that's it...The Phone Company. Some of you might not remember. Everybody had the same phone company. It was great until the goobermeant decided something needed to be done about it. If it ain't broke, fix it. > No, he's confusing usage with grammar. The idiomatic > expression "have a seat" refers to the use of the > chair, not the chair itself. It is equivalent to > "be seated" which might be something he would find > more...comfortable. That was his point. English depends too much on usage whereas the Portuguese would be more apt to say "be seated". Joe www.loavesandfishessoupkitchen.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
