Here's the text of a q-call I made to Puplava's show that was released this weekend and it was included in the first segment:

"Jim, I listened to the Jeff Christian-Bill Murphy debate and came away disappointed, here's why.

While Christian and Nick Barischeff have been given free rein in prior appearances, Murphy is forced to debate. Plus, Christian knew, or could have easily deduced, that the questions in the GATA open letter to him would be debate points. Murphy had no such pre-knowledge of Christian arguments to allow him to prepare rebuttals. That's a big advantage to Christian, don't you think?

Christian threw both shoulders out congratulating himself on precise speaking, yet he advanced a vague argument that gold could spike, but will AVERAGE around 940 over the next 10 years, What does that mean. As moderator, you might have asked is that average simply the 10 year high and 10-year low? An average time-weighted by daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, whatever closes? Or something else? You didn't.

One more point----in the past you have seemed to acknowledge governmental plunge protection teams for stock and currency markets. But you seem to be saying in May 2010 that there is no manipulation by governments, central banks or their proxies in gold and silver markets. Please tell me and other listeners, clearly and unequivocally whether you believe or disbelieve in such metals manipulation."

------

I got some answers -- well, maybe, I think, possibly, sort of. If you end up listening to it, I'd love to hear impressions. Here are mine:

1) Puplava, after the fact, has revealed that the debate topics were discussed with the participants in advance. However, that does not address my point, that Christian knew the questions in advance, as did Murphy, but Murphy did not know Christian's answers in advance. I reiterate, that's a substantial advantage. In typical Puplava fashion, he addresses the topic, but not definitively. Were I running the debate, I would have felt obliged to note before it started that both sides were given the questions. I think that's just fair to the listening public, but maybe I'm on another planet.

2) Puplava didn't address the vague nature of Christian's gold-average ramblings. I guess no one could because averages are used by those who wish to remain obtuse.

3) Puplava seemed to be saying regarding the third point that he believes gold and silver will continue to go up in price, but there is no manipulation. He even goes so far as to point to the price increases over the past decade as proof there is no manipulation. To borrow from his buddy, Christian, prices going up doesn't prove lack of manipulation. It could be the prices would be double, triple or more than they are presently without market manipulation.

I'm not sure, though, about Puplava's stance because to borrow a pet phrase of a friend, pinning Puplava down is like trying to nail Jell-o to a tree.

Goldcarp