2006

I know before the middle of February it may be difficult to discern
any real leaders in funds but I would love to hear what the heads
here have to say on kick butt funds for 2006.

Re: 2006

Not to dissuade you personally from timing, but for newbies,
from "The Motley Fool" at fool.com, Dec. 21, 2005, by Brian
Richards:

---
.... I took great interest in a study that Standard & Poor's
released over the summer. The S&P's Mutual Fund Performance
Persistence Scorecard (link opens a PDF file) measured the
consistency of top-performing mutual funds over three and
five consecutive years. As of May 31, only 10.7% of
large-cap funds, 9.2% of mid-cap funds, and 11.5% of
small-cap funds maintained a top-quartile ranking for three
consecutive years. Which is to say that only one in every 10
top-performing funds in a given year stays in the top 25%
for the next two.
....
With more mutual funds than publicly traded stocks available
for your hard-earned investment dollars, this is actually
not all that surprising. Even less surprising, the most
consistent top-performing funds had common characteristics.
According to the S&P, recurring top performers had:

1. Longer manager tenures at their funds. The average U.S.
domestic stock fund has an average manager tenure of 4.6
years.

2. Lower expense ratios relative to their peers. The average
expense ratio of U.S. funds is 1.53%.

3. A protected downside: According to the S&P, "While
winners did better in the bull market rebound, the
consistent winners also minimized or avoided losses during
the bear market." Winners, in short, stuck to their
strategic guns in good times and bad.

That's a solid three-step start for finding market-beating
mutual funds. And it just happens to be exactly what Fool
fund-finder [and PhD] Shannon Zimmerman never shuts up
about. (I mean that in a good way.)
---


<> wrote
> I know before the middle of February it may be difficult
to discern
> any real leaders in funds but I would love to hear what
the heads
> here have to say on kick butt funds for 2006.
>
>
>

Re: 2006

<> wrote in message
news:
>I know before the middle of February it may be difficult to discern
> any real leaders in funds but I would love to hear what the heads
> here have to say on kick butt funds for 2006.

Healthcare is coming around. I think the market (US) might be ok for part of
Q1 then it's downhill or flat until Q4.
For individual funds, regions, sectors, etc., it's to early to tell. I don't
like energy and have sold the sector. Biotech might have a good year. All
of this is speculation and I'm not suggesting anyone act on it. I will be
buying some CSQ and some ETF next week. I just want CSQ to go up $1 or so,
ETF just has a great chart. When I buy these it will almost definetly be
short term. Probably won't own either of them in a month or two.

Re: 2006

wrote:

> I know before the middle of February it may be difficult to discern
> any real leaders in funds but I would love to hear what the heads
> here have to say on kick butt funds for 2006.

If the new Fed chairman is more dovish on inflation than Greenspan was,
then gold should continue to rise.

Russia (e.g., LETRX) should continue to outperform too. Russia is best
thought of as a natural resource rich emerging market. It should do
well in inflationary times.

Japan (e.g., FJSCX) should continue to outperform this year too, because
it's finally getting out of its long-term secular-bear doldrums.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: 2006

wrote:
> I know before the middle of February it may be difficult to discern
> any real leaders in funds but I would love to hear what the heads
> here have to say on kick butt funds for 2006.

I'd avoid Energy, Real Estate & maybe Latin America.

I'd seriously look at precious metals & health care.

Too bad they don't have a porn fund. That'd make steady returns no
matter what.

Re: 2006

Steven L. <> wrote:
> Japan (e.g., FJSCX) should continue to outperform this year too, because
> it's finally getting out of its long-term secular-bear doldrums.

I'll second FJSCX. It's a great fund.

Re: 2006

wrote:
> I know before the middle of February it may be difficult to discern
> any real leaders in funds but I would love to hear what the heads
> here have to say on kick butt funds for 2006.

There are signs that point to a new economy*. Where labor output
increased its yield due to IT, economists expected a depression at its
bust. It didn't happen. Instead, productivity has grown. Where a tenth
of sectors drove the IT growth, closer today at the same proportions,
wholesale trade and financial services are eminent. A curious phenomena
to conventional economics, which has serivces at lower odds than
manufacturers. Precociousness is at the centre -- adaption, logistical
implementation and deployment of IT over a competitive infrastructor of
these sectors -- into byways of regulatory bounds purveyors of
nationalistic linguists have spread for IT to cross the boundaries of a
global macroeconomy.

*

Re: 2006

Mike Stone wrote:
> wrote:
> > I know before the middle of February it may be difficult to discern
> > any real leaders in funds but I would love to hear what the heads
> > here have to say on kick butt funds for 2006.
>
> I'd avoid Energy, Real Estate & maybe Latin America.
>
> I'd seriously look at precious metals & health care.
>
> Too bad they don't have a porn fund. That'd make steady returns no
> matter what.

Whilst porn is a 'good business' it is not a good business for
external, minority shareholders. There are too many governance
problems-- the money tends to leak out the door to the various criminal
and other fraternities that have a stake in it. I know people who have
investigated this industry, it is very difficult to keep out the fraud
and the leakage of money out of the company into the hands of the
shadowy figures around the companies. (auditors tend not to look too
hard when they are threatened with broken arms and worse).

A better example of a de facto government regulated business with high
margins, high return on capital and high barriers to entry is tobacco.
Take a look at BAT, Imperial Tobacco and Altria.

A third is gambling. Harrah's would be my favourite US co, because
they are managed in a relatively scientific way (in the same way that
MBNA manages credit cards)-- nothing is ever done at Harrah's without
an experiment to prove its validity first. Without looking at the
valuation of the stock, which I have not dne.

There is a profusion of online gambling stocks in the UK. Technically
online gambling is held to violate the Wire Act, so the executives of
all these firms risk FBI arrest if they enter into the US... it's a
huge grey area. You might be better off with an 'offline' firm going
online (eg Paddy Power) than with a pure internet play (PartyGaming has
had a profits warning weeks after IPO). Ladbrokes (Hilton) is in play
right now. There are also pure spreadbetting firms like Betfair, IG
Index, City Index etc. Betfair has the most unique and interesting
business model in my mind, again I haven't done the work on the
individual stocks.

Re: 2006

PS I agree with your general sentiments re 'avoids' and your interest
in health care.

Re: 2006

darkness39 <> wrote:

> and other fraternities that have a stake in it. I know people who have
> investigated this industry, it is very difficult to keep out the fraud
> and the leakage of money out of the company into the hands of the
> shadowy figures around the companies. (auditors tend not to look too
> hard when they are threatened with broken arms and worse).

I was joking when I posted the line about porn :) But you are right
about tobbaco and gambling.

I don't know enough about them to invest myself however.

-Mike

Re: 2006

This might apply... pizza ordering in 15 years..



Happy Guy, "Laissez les bons temps roulez"
..

Re: 2006

Mike Stone wrote:

> Too bad they don't have a porn fund. That'd make steady returns no
> matter what.

I'm utterly shocked.



In 1989 Disney became a partner, and the largest percentage owner in
Viewer's Choice "Hot Choice"-a leader in Pay-Per-View cable soft porn.
Until Disney showed up, Viewer's Choice had only played action films
and comedies. Profits were good but Disney wanted better, and so they
launched the "soft porn" division in 1993. Disney signed Marilyn
Chambers, a veteran hard core porn star, to an exclusive multi-project
deal a year after she won the "Lifetime Achievement Award" from the
Adult Video Association. -[From] Story by Rik and Janel Villegas

Re: 2006

darkness39 wrote:
> Whilst porn is a 'good business' it is not a good business for
> external, minority shareholders. There are too many governance
> problems-- the money tends to leak out the door to the various criminal
> and other fraternities that have a stake in it. I know people who have
> investigated this industry, it is very difficult to keep out the fraud
> and the leakage of money out of the company into the hands of the
> shadowy figures around the companies. (auditors tend not to look too
> hard when they are threatened with broken arms and worse).

Victorians developed the term "pornography" by combining two Greek
words - "porne" meaning "harlot," and "grapheim" meaning "to write,"
shortly after Sir Charles Sedley in 1663 got drunk at a public tavern,
climbed upstairs, and urinated while unabashedly naked into the
astounded crowd on the street below. This is first recorded occasion in
Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence punishable as an affront to public decency.
Since then, Western societies have broadened blasphemy, to included
obscenity, and porn and censorship have grown hand-in-hand. Motion
pictures began in 1894;-- at precisely five minutes, after which, the
first woman posed naked before the camera lens. America has made the
most stag films, followed by France, where the genre originated and
flourished until Gaullist repression;--a genre's plots hence basically
French in origin. Latin American influences are seen coming from
pre-Castro Havana. Technically abysmal, they are some the most
humiliating productions;--juxtaposing beasts and women, a repressed
hatred of the Church is to be seen at the crux, offering analogies
similar to the writing of Marquis Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade.
It isn't until after the second World War that porn takes on a mein
still extant, patened after theatrical burlesque for ambience in
brothels;-- Notes one surrealist poet before the transition, '[erotic]
cinema, and a hatred shown it by imbeciles, is consolation for
everything that is disappointing in artificial, everyday
life';--Bearing in mind, sex in cinema did not enter mainstream
censorship until the prohibition of alcohol, with estranged and radical
Jews seen as purveyors from the media and accademia decadently cited at
its source. And though, as late as 1970, adult films continued to be
viewed for reasonable intent and artistry of nudity, so in order to
pass Production Code Office seal of approval, values had already begun
to change: Reuben Sturman is the modernized structure of corporate porn
where its 'shades of shadows' appear. Using up to 20 aliases, and
cloaked and hooded during rare public appearances, Sturman employed the
full support and protection of the Cosa Nostra, who arguably bankrolled
the most profitably viewed film of last century, Deep Throat. Erotic
loops have since run quite afar from a general audience gamut of 8 to
10 films yearly in the 1960s, embodied by Russ Meyer's soft cuties, Ted
Paramore's slick-to-celluloid glamors of Playboy and Hustler, the
grisly side of producers Friedman, Margold, and Findlay, or Radley
Metzger's Doesteyevskian behaviorialistic plots driven, rather than
staggering out of sexuality; . . .quite afar, as writer Hubner's of
the San Jose Mercury appears to enamor the subversive side sexuality,
'stripped away [from] identities it takes a lifetime to build';. .
..but, how so far from a numbnut-athleticism by aides viagra infuses to
pedantically endowed sexcapades on mpeg satellite streams.

Re: 2006

Tis, Tis. Flash seems to use other's work as his own:



Not unless he wrote the referenced book, then what are the chances this:

Needing a word to define naughty novels such as Fanny Hill, the Victorians
developed the term "pornography" by combining two Greek words - "porne"
meaning "harlot," and "grapheim" meaning "to write." Pornography literally
means "writing about whores."

Compared To

Victorians developed the term "pornography" by combining two Greek
> words - "porne" meaning "harlot," and "grapheim" meaning "to write,"





"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> darkness39 wrote:
>> Whilst porn is a 'good business' it is not a good business for
>> external, minority shareholders. There are too many governance
>> problems-- the money tends to leak out the door to the various criminal
>> and other fraternities that have a stake in it. I know people who have
>> investigated this industry, it is very difficult to keep out the fraud
>> and the leakage of money out of the company into the hands of the
>> shadowy figures around the companies. (auditors tend not to look too
>> hard when they are threatened with broken arms and worse).
>
> Victorians developed the term "pornography" by combining two Greek
> words - "porne" meaning "harlot," and "grapheim" meaning "to write,"
> shortly after Sir Charles Sedley in 1663 got drunk at a public tavern,
> climbed upstairs, and urinated while unabashedly naked into the
> astounded crowd on the street below. This is first recorded occasion in
> Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence punishable as an affront to public decency.
> Since then, Western societies have broadened blasphemy, to included
> obscenity, and porn and censorship have grown hand-in-hand. Motion
> pictures began in 1894;-- at precisely five minutes, after which, the
> first woman posed naked before the camera lens. America has made the
> most stag films, followed by France, where the genre originated and
> flourished until Gaullist repression;--a genre's plots hence basically
> French in origin. Latin American influences are seen coming from
> pre-Castro Havana. Technically abysmal, they are some the most
> humiliating productions;--juxtaposing beasts and women, a repressed
> hatred of the Church is to be seen at the crux, offering analogies
> similar to the writing of Marquis Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade.
> It isn't until after the second World War that porn takes on a mein
> still extant, patened after theatrical burlesque for ambience in
> brothels;-- Notes one surrealist poet before the transition, '[erotic]
> cinema, and a hatred shown it by imbeciles, is consolation for
> everything that is disappointing in artificial, everyday
> life';--Bearing in mind, sex in cinema did not enter mainstream
> censorship until the prohibition of alcohol, with estranged and radical
> Jews seen as purveyors from the media and accademia decadently cited at
> its source. And though, as late as 1970, adult films continued to be
> viewed for reasonable intent and artistry of nudity, so in order to
> pass Production Code Office seal of approval, values had already begun
> to change: Reuben Sturman is the modernized structure of corporate porn
> where its 'shades of shadows' appear. Using up to 20 aliases, and
> cloaked and hooded during rare public appearances, Sturman employed the
> full support and protection of the Cosa Nostra, who arguably bankrolled
> the most profitably viewed film of last century, Deep Throat. Erotic
> loops have since run quite afar from a general audience gamut of 8 to
> 10 films yearly in the 1960s, embodied by Russ Meyer's soft cuties, Ted
> Paramore's slick-to-celluloid glamors of Playboy and Hustler, the
> grisly side of producers Friedman, Margold, and Findlay, or Radley
> Metzger's Doesteyevskian behaviorialistic plots driven, rather than
> staggering out of sexuality; . . .quite afar, as writer Hubner's of
> the San Jose Mercury appears to enamor the subversive side sexuality,
> 'stripped away [from] identities it takes a lifetime to build';. .
> .but, how so far from a numbnut-athleticism by aides viagra infuses to
> pedantically endowed sexcapades on mpeg satellite streams.
>

Re: 2006

Mike Stone wrote:
> darkness39 <> wrote:
>
> > and other fraternities that have a stake in it. I know people who have
> > investigated this industry, it is very difficult to keep out the fraud
> > and the leakage of money out of the company into the hands of the
> > shadowy figures around the companies. (auditors tend not to look too
> > hard when they are threatened with broken arms and worse).
>
> I was joking when I posted the line about porn :) But you are right
> about tobbaco and gambling.
>
> I don't know enough about them to invest myself however.
>
> -Mike

As you can imagine I am usually the straight man in any joke ;-).

I often find that if we take 'ridiculous' suggestions and take them at
face value, we learn a lot about our investing prejudices and
preconceptions.

It is pretty clear that big tobacco has gone into business with big
government: accept a certain level of regulation and taxation (and the
legal fee settlement) and continue to peddle a high margin good, with
serious barriers to entry for new entrants. It is a game big alcohol
clicked on to a long time ago: Seagrams got its start running tanker
cars of whiskey down from Montreal to the Vermont border, getting them
back empty, and not asking too many questions. Eventually the
government decided it was better to profit from moonshining than try to
suppress it.

Defence is not so different although more cyclical.

Porn I don't see it happening anytime soon-- the barriers to making a
porn movie are too low, the industry is too fragmented and there is too
much mob money in it. By contrast, gambling has turned itself into a
key part of government fiscal strategies, aligned itself with Native
American rights, etc. At the same time, the mob angle has receded into
the background. So gambling is too entrenched.

There is a collision coming between big pharma and the US government
over pricing, but again, too, I expect the two to find a modus vivendi
over pricing so the former can remain highly profitable, and do lots of
R&D, and the latter can enjoy lower costs.

Re: 2006

"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> Tis, Tis. Flash seems to use other's work as his own:

Doesn't everyone?

Every year I spent in school, someone else taught the class, someone else
wrote the books.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that every original thought you ever had was
based on someone else's
teaching?

Imagine if you were left alone at birth, only fed so you wouldn't starve.
Nothing to read, no one to learn from, no one to talk to, no radio, no
television. What kind of person would you be at age 1? Age 25? Age 50?
You would be about the same.

Re: 2006

Now there's a topic for a philosophy class...... Does anyone ever have an
original thought?

There is transference of knowledge, of course. I do it all the time..
everytime I do something "new", the outcome is based on my other life's
experiences.... I assume, the older I get, the less chance I ever have of
having an 'original thought'.. But, my life's experiences keep getting
better because of my knowledge base.

Happy Guy, "Laissez les bons temps roulez"
..
..
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
> news:
>> Tis, Tis. Flash seems to use other's work as his own:
>
> Doesn't everyone?
>
> Every year I spent in school, someone else taught the class, someone else
> wrote the books.
>
> Wouldn't it be fair to say that every original thought you ever had was
> based on someone else's
> teaching?

Re: 2006

Mike Stone wrote:
> darkness39 <> wrote:
>
>
>>and other fraternities that have a stake in it. I know people who have
>>investigated this industry, it is very difficult to keep out the fraud
>>and the leakage of money out of the company into the hands of the
>>shadowy figures around the companies. (auditors tend not to look too
>>hard when they are threatened with broken arms and worse).
>
>
> I was joking when I posted the line about porn :) But you are right
> about tobbaco and gambling.
>
> I don't know enough about them to invest myself however.

Surprise! There are at least two funds that do exactly that.

First was a closed-end fund called "Morgan Funshares" (MFUN). It had
holdings in beer and liquor companies, Harrah's casinos, tobacco stocks,
etc.

Second is a brand-new small open-end fund called "The Vice Fund" (VICEX}
with similar holdings.

Finally, from time to time, the owners of some brothels have attempted
to go public with stock offerings. In Australia in 2003, "The Daily
Planet," a chain of brothels and striptease bars, finally succeeded in
becoming a publicly traded corporation on the Sydney stock exchange. I
don't know how the stock has done lately.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Re: 2006

NoEd wrote:
> Tis, Tis. Flash seems to use other's work as his own:

Excellent tracking, NoEd. There's probably 20 billion websites out
there, of no small part, a burgeoning and lucrative internet cottage
industry of porn and all things sexually related. That's quite unusual
for me to think you'd find out such a source of trivia. Did you notice
it is a brief synopsis of the first chapter? There's as well quite an
amassed collection of interviews with industry actors to be found
there. You see, I'm also in an area where the industry works. When
younger and bodybuilding, I was approached and asked to participate as
an actor, which I declined. So, I haven't quite a degree of directness
to naughtiness you allude to; what I do know would have come through
acquaintances of acquaintances directly within the industry.

>

Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and
find your liberty.
-Frank Herbert, Dune

Re: 2006

"Flasherly" <> wrote in message
news:
> NoEd wrote:
>> Tis, Tis. Flash seems to use other's work as his own:
>
> Excellent tracking, NoEd. There's probably 20 billion websites out
> there, of no small part, a burgeoning and lucrative internet cottage
> industry of porn and all things sexually related. That's quite unusual
> for me to think you'd find out such a source of trivia. Did you notice
> it is a brief synopsis of the first chapter? There's as well quite an
> amassed collection of interviews with industry actors to be found
> there. You see, I'm also in an area where the industry works. When
> younger and bodybuilding, I was approached and asked to participate as
> an actor, which I declined. So, I haven't quite a degree of directness
> to naughtiness you allude to;

I alluded to what? I directly showed that you copied other's work and tried
to claim it was yours. There is no allusion. What I really think underlies
your prior and current postings is delusion. Did not someone once say "The
truth will set you free?"





> acquaintances of acquaintances directly within the industry.
>
>>
>
> Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and
> find your liberty.
> -Frank Herbert, Dune
>

Re: 2006

"happy-guy" <> wrote

> Now there's a topic for a philosophy class...... Does anyone ever have an
> original thought?

No, but they can improve upon it.











> There is transference of knowledge, of course. I do it all the time..
> everytime I do something "new", the outcome is based on my other life's
> experiences.... I assume, the older I get, the less chance I ever have of
> having an 'original thought'.. But, my life's experiences keep getting
> better because of my knowledge base.
>
> Happy Guy, "Laissez les bons temps roulez"
> .
> .
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>> Tis, Tis. Flash seems to use other's work as his own:
>>
>> Doesn't everyone?
>>
>> Every year I spent in school, someone else taught the class, someone else
>> wrote the books.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be fair to say that every original thought you ever had was
>> based on someone else's
>> teaching?
>
>

Re: 2006

"NoEd" <> wrote

> I alluded to what? I directly showed that you copied other's work and
> tried to claim it was yours. There is no allusion. What I really think
> underlies your prior and current postings is delusion. Did not someone
> once say "The truth will set you free?"

What is the truth?

I never saw a claim that Flasherly said anything was his.

Re: 2006

"NoEd" <> wrote

Hey buddy, I'm beating the S&P500 again. I have a bunch of witnesses.

Re: 2006

But, when they improve on it, is it because of original thought, or just
extrapolation of their existing mental data base of other "borrowed"
knowledge.

Newton 'discovered' gravity.... well, gravity already existed... he just
noticed and explained it better than anyone else we know of.... or at least
anyone I know of...

Happy Guy, "Laissez les bons temps roulez"
..
..
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "happy-guy" <> wrote
>
>> Now there's a topic for a philosophy class...... Does anyone ever have an
>> original thought?
>
> No, but they can improve upon it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> There is transference of knowledge, of course. I do it all the time..
>> everytime I do something "new", the outcome is based on my other life's
>> experiences.... I assume, the older I get, the less chance I ever have of
>> having an 'original thought'.. But, my life's experiences keep getting
>> better because of my knowledge base.
>>
>> Happy Guy, "Laissez les bons temps roulez"
>> .
>> .
>> "Ed" <> wrote in message
>> news:
>>>
>>> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
>>> news:
>>>> Tis, Tis. Flash seems to use other's work as his own:
>>>
>>> Doesn't everyone?
>>>
>>> Every year I spent in school, someone else taught the class, someone
>>> else wrote the books.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't it be fair to say that every original thought you ever had was
>>> based on someone else's
>>> teaching?
>>
>>
>
>

Re: 2006

You're a blank that has been completely discredited, as flash gordon has,
a.k.a the pornstar want-to-be. Go debate your wife.


"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "NoEd" <> wrote
>
> Hey buddy, I'm beating the S&P500 again. I have a bunch of witnesses.
>
>

Re: 2006

Let me help you with the definition of plagiarizing:

transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as
one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original
an idea or product derived from an existing source



"happy-guy" <> wrote in message
news:pf0sf.44572$
> But, when they improve on it, is it because of original thought, or just
> extrapolation of their existing mental data base of other "borrowed"
> knowledge.
>
> Newton 'discovered' gravity.... well, gravity already existed... he just
> noticed and explained it better than anyone else we know of.... or at
> least anyone I know of...
>
> Happy Guy, "Laissez les bons temps roulez"
> .
> .
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "happy-guy" <> wrote
>>
>>> Now there's a topic for a philosophy class...... Does anyone ever have
>>> an original thought?
>>
>> No, but they can improve upon it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> There is transference of knowledge, of course. I do it all the time..
>>> everytime I do something "new", the outcome is based on my other life's
>>> experiences.... I assume, the older I get, the less chance I ever have
>>> of having an 'original thought'.. But, my life's experiences keep
>>> getting better because of my knowledge base.
>>>
>>> Happy Guy, "Laissez les bons temps roulez"
>>> .
>>> .
>>> "Ed" <> wrote in message
>>> news:
>>>>
>>>> "NoEd" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:
>>>>> Tis, Tis. Flash seems to use other's work as his own:
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't everyone?
>>>>
>>>> Every year I spent in school, someone else taught the class, someone
>>>> else wrote the books.
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be fair to say that every original thought you ever had was
>>>> based on someone else's
>>>> teaching?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Re: 2006

NoEd wrote:
> I alluded to what? I directly showed that you copied other's work and tried
> to claim it was yours. There is no allusion. What I really think underlies
> your prior and current postings is delusion. Did not someone once say "The
> truth will set you free?"

That wouldn't then be an allusion - from the first chapter, I see now
(interrupted before and halfway out the door for a diner date). Think
what you will of material I found interesting in light of being within
accessible public domain. It shouldn't think it's out of context, to a
point I intended to make: the mob aspect isn't going to be as it was in
Las Vegas - here, at least - but, as it has, so may it continue to
evolve mainstrain as values change. I don't believe you'll find I was
untruthful to the original rendition, though I'll leave that to your
own sense for criticism. Between you and me, I'd probably find it
somewhat boring in a literal sense anymore extensively to pursue. A
thoroughly lambasted piece by the critics, though after a single
chapter, I'm shouldn't count myself one of them. I do have another
book, though, with a more scholarly approach to dated periodic pieces
attacking the Church during the French Revolution, chockfull of
cross-references for citation's sake, of course. As for imputating I
belong in the adult industry, I wouldn't belabor myself so, really -
try and think of it as casual experiences one takes in stride in the
"big city", as it were, along with a multitude of different and sundry
sights. Which should about bring us up to par with the truth - a
context of [being in] darkness error maligns, perhaps that is what you
have in mind about something I said, one ought to know relative to an
order willing to distinguish by difference light clears. How we doing,
sport, sound about right?

Re: 2006

"Flasherly" <> wrote
> NoEd wrote:
> > I alluded to what? I directly showed that you copied
other's work and tried
> > to claim it was yours. There is no allusion. What I
really think underlies
> > your prior and current postings is delusion. Did not
someone once say "The
> > truth will set you free?"
>
> That wouldn't then be an allusion - from the first
chapter, I see now
> (interrupted before and halfway out the door for a diner
date). Think
> what you will of material I found interesting in light of
being within
> accessible public domain. It shouldn't think it's out of
context, to a
> point I intended to make: the mob aspect isn't going to be
as it was in
> Las Vegas - here, at least - but, as it has, so may it
continue to
> evolve mainstrain as values change. I don't believe you'll
find I was
> untruthful to the original rendition, though I'll leave
that to your
> own sense for criticism.

Are you seriously missing his point (beating it to death as
he is)?

Just say you were hurrying and forgot to attribute, and move
on. (Fat chance.)

Plagiarism on Usenet is about as serious an infraction as
bad grammar on Usenet. No one really cares.

Re: 2006

You're too funny.







"NoEd" <> wrote in message
news:
> You're a blank that has been completely discredited, as flash gordon has,
> a.k.a the pornstar want-to-be. Go debate your wife.
>
>
> "Ed" <> wrote in message
> news:
>>
>> "NoEd" <> wrote
>>
>> Hey buddy, I'm beating the S&P500 again. I have a bunch of witnesses.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: 2006

"Tess Millay" <> wrote

> No one really cares.
>
>
The witch and I finally agree upon something.

Re: 2006

Tess Millay wrote:
> Are you seriously missing his point (beating it to death as
> he is)?
> Just say you were hurrying and forgot to attribute, and move
> on. (Fat chance.)
> Plagiarism on Usenet is about as serious an infraction as
> bad grammar on Usenet. No one really cares.

Although I've largely passed over copyright debates as entirely too
impassioned to be appropriate, I do find some consolation in
implications copyright law holds fundamental to economic entitlement.
A thorn to the either side of practices, I propose, for just as there
are not clearly delineated academic essays within academic plagiarism,
so, too, might there be ramifications for capitalism at odds to assess
value upon intellectual property. What solace is held dear, is a
preponderant generality of an ethical Western nature, as one that rules
over both by instances at some variance within valuation. It is as if
it were another way to provide you my entirely reasonable intent, if
you will be so generous and permit me bluntly to say, Ma'am, that I
know exactly what it is you actually mean, insofar for you to say:
[that] no one [at one time will, while at another, others do and] will
care;-- If it is such that you do care to admit what you truly intend,
of course.

I am, really, a great writer; my only difficulty is in finding great
readers. -Frank Harris, My Life and Loves.

Re: 2006

The closest thing to a porn fund is VICEX. Invests in the vices.

best,

rono

Re: 2006

Howdy folks,

Hope everyone is having some great holidays.

Going forward, I still don't see '06 as being a banner year for
equities. I think there's too much headwind in the form of rising
rates, energy costs and employment issues. However, should this prove
to be the case, we might see the Fed dropping rates by the fall. Gross
sees this happening and if we do slow down, it becomes a distinct
possibility.

That said, I like asia a ton - particularly Japan and Korea. China and
India are not going away, but are a bit hard to play directly (MINDX is
an exception being an Indian fund by Matthews). BUT, you can play
China via Japan and Korea or simply a broad based pan-asian fund that
INCLUDES Japan and you've gotta check 'cause most pan-asian funds are
ex-japan.

I like natural resources overall. I like the basic extraction plays
because of overall demand spurred by China and India and everyone else.
I like precious metals (duh, did anyone guess!?!) and while I think
energy, per se' is probably toppy, I like energy services at these
prices. Easiest way to play this sector is with a broad based natural
resource fund like Price PRNEX, US Global PSPFX, or RS Global RSNRX
(there are others).

I still like emerging mkts as a whole. This covers asia, latin america
and eastern europe.

I think we're starting to see a bit of a resurgence in large cap growth
and even tech. However, it may be slow in developing.

Amusement parks had a good year, so this could translate into a play in
the Leisure sector. Folks are starting to retire (boomers) and so long
as we don't have a terrorist event, all the leisure activies and
excursions should do well.

I don't like Real Estate as it seems very toppy. Yields are great, but
the rising rates are starting to impact the market.

Health is dicey. I like biotech but not big-pharma. I like some
aspects of health care, but the political storm is starting to form and
ground zero is the health care complex.

I'm overweight precious metals and mining in general, natural
resources, asia, japan, korea, emerging mkts, eastern europe. I've
still got a bit in small caps with Bridgeway and have some feeler plays
out with large caps and tech.

just some thoughts,

rono

Re: 2006

rono <> wrote:

> That said, I like asia a ton - particularly Japan and Korea. China and
> India are not going away, but are a bit hard to play directly (MINDX is
> an exception being an Indian fund by Matthews). BUT, you can play

I've been in Japan for a while and am getting weary of the Nikkei. If
you're buying into Japan don't be too surprised if the Nikkei corrects
soon.

It's gone from mid-11,000 to 16,000 in a few months :)

That said, I think it's a good long term play.

-Mike

Re: 2006

darkness39 <> wrote:

> As you can imagine I am usually the straight man in any joke ;-).

Well you have very detailed and informative posts :-)

> It is pretty clear that big tobacco has gone into business with big
> government: accept a certain level of regulation and taxation (and the
> legal fee settlement) and continue to peddle a high margin good, with
> serious barriers to entry for new entrants. It is a game big alcohol

And the same applies to stocks. I bought CPS after the 2000 elections:



Buy Haliburton around the time the Iraq war starts:



And Rummy's Bird Flu business:



I watched Haliburton & Gilead over the years but never picked any up.

> There is a collision coming between big pharma and the US government
> over pricing, but again, too, I expect the two to find a modus vivendi
> over pricing so the former can remain highly profitable, and do lots of
> R&D, and the latter can enjoy lower costs.

I don't think the costs will be lower. At least I don't see the incentive
to make the costs lower. If anything at all, the drug companies (with
the Medicare drug benefit that is just now going into effect) will become
less effective. They have fewer incentives to innovate and compete because
they're subsidized heavily by the government and the government is working
in their favor.

Personally, I think oil companies would feel more of an incentive to innovate
with alternative fuels if they got less help from the government & if the
government spent more money on R&D for alternate fuel research.

If Big Pharma & Government end up developing a relationship it'll be similar
to the one that Big Oil has. It won't benefit any of us (unless we own their
stocks).

-Mike

Re: 2006

rono wrote:
> The closest thing to a porn fund is VICEX. Invests in the vices.

And will likely stay that way, though I wonder about the ins-&-outs of
that. Money's money, and it's a 12(+?) billion dollar business in the
U.S. I'd be surprised if I didn't own a piece in my portfolio (no
socially-conscious funds). It's big on the internet, big on-demand,
and prurience doesn't lack an audience.

PBS - one of the few remaining streams I can stomach these days -
probably a good take. Haven't looked it over yet.