You have a good point, silverton.

If my opinions were simply based on long-term holdings of SSO, I would definitely see how that would apply.

However, I have been in (and out of) dozens of stocks (including SSO) for a large net profit, also I have a large net gain on the options positions I have taken (which is apparently far from the norm). "Large" is of course a subjective term, but increasing my net worth by 1.5 orders of magnitude in 12 years basically sums it up.

I do not simply "buy and hold" although I am also far from a day trader. I tend to grab what I think are "good stocks" after doing my due diligence, then hold while looking at what factors are affecting the stock's performance and potential performance.

If things start looking bad (fundamentally, I don't use TA much in this type of investing), then I will switch out and go find other "good stocks".

I am not basing my claim on simply being "one-time lucky" in SSO.

I might have been "lucky", but if so, it was multiple times lucky, and not just in SSO. Sure, I have had multiple losers too.

I am not arrogant enough to think that there is nothing left for me to learn. I am well aware that there is plenty "out there" for *everybody* still to learn.

However, I am not about to take the word of people who do not back it up with direct objective support that I have "no experience in Investing" and am essentially "clueless" about investing.

My biggest beef with this suggestion is that my detractor(s) are *not* willing to give even one single concrete fact or verifiable line of reasoning to support their argument. It is all based on "I am expert, you clearly are not, so you should take my word for it and "shut up" till you have educated yourself." And he/she/it/they refuse to back that up. This is not reasonable debate.

I indicated that I do not know *all* the ins and outs of convertible notes, but I am pretty darn sure that they are (in basic principle) the following:

A loan with a guaranteed interest rate structure (either fixed or variable rate) with an option (by one or both parties) to have the loan converted to shares under predefined (covered in the details of each individual offering) circumstances.

I know that there are many other things, involved that are either common to loans in general or other "convertible instruments".

Are my detractors telling me that I am wrong in this?

No, I don't think so.

Nontheless, they ask me to "look at how I have admitted my ignorance" as proof that I "know nothing".

What happens is that they use extreme adjectives (e.g. crushing debt burden) and then when I object that they are either ignoring other factors or using hyperbole (what is so "crushing" about this debt?), they simply tell me to go look at textbooks rather than trot out the numbers they are supposedly basing their opinion on.

BTW... Do many analysts think that a $130M loan with a 4.5% annual interest rate to help develop a mine that is projected to produce over 100M of free cash flow per year to be a "crushing" debt burden? When you quantify the numbers it doesn't appear so using accepted industry averages and metrics.

This is also regarding a company that has no net debt up until this point and has approximately 100M in liquid assets (leaving aside the ore deposits altogether)

I can, and do, read Financial reports and feasibility studies and think I understand most of the information in them.

This is also coupled with my detractors reluctance to directly answer any questions posed to them regarding the arguments and their attempts to sidestep the pertinent issues with innuendo about my putative lack of understanding.

If you look at colin's first post on convertible notes, you will see that he has misunderstood the english meaning of my post. Rather than indicate that he sees this, he starts calling me unlearned. Rather strange, isn't it?

I find it very hard to credit that person(s) that cannot read English for correct interpretation, who sidestep direct answers to issues, and who claim (without independent support of any kind) to be "so far above me that I cannot even comprehend the plane that they exist on" to be totally incredible in this kind of claim.

I am about to refer this whole matter to the Agoracom administrators and get their advice on what to do about this.

In my opinion, it is an attack on my credibility using baseless and unsupported inuendo and other aspects of "FUD".

Thanks for listening to (reading) my side in this.

I also am an investor by necessity.

What particular variety of geologist are you?