Cage Match: Bron vs. Denver Dave

In one corner, from the former penal colony of Australia, we have Bron Suchecki of The Perth Mint. In the other corner, from the future penal colony of Colorado, we have Denver Dave from The Golden Truth website.

Judging by the level of response, both helpful and vitriolic, my pal Andy and I really kicked the proverbial hornet's nest when I released this post two weeks ago: Managing through all of the clutter has been challenging but the differing opinions have been neatly summarized by two longtime readers of this site and I offer them to you in the space below.

First up, there's Bron Suchecki from The Perth Mint in Australia. Bron contends that there are several mistakes and faulty conclusions within Andy's piece. He's believes this so ardently that he took the time to write up a detailed piece, which he posted to the Perth Mint site as well as his own blog. To conserve space, I'm reprinting just the summary and conclusion below. You can read the entire piece by clicking here:

Price suppression mechanics was the focus of Andrew’s article. In terms of price suppression, I’ve demonstrated that the “borrow and sell” process can achieve this but the “long GLD, short unallocated” or “short GLD, long unallocated” processes do not.
Andrew also suggested the ETFs were being used as a source of physical metal when the bullion bank’s physical reserves ran low. Again, the “borrow and sell” process is the only one which can provide a bullion bank with a supply of physical.

I would also note that in terms of price suppression, the effect of “borrow and sell” on the gold price depends on the volume of gold borrowed versus the demand. It is entirely possible for the gold price to still rise in the face of “borrow and sell” transactions if the amount supplied was less than demand. The price may also just stay flat or it may fall. The effect of “borrow and sell” is suppression of a price that may have been (an exercise in counterfactual thinking), not necessarily resulting in a lower price. This can make manipulations hard to prove, particularly in conjunction with having to establish intent.
In any case, I am not sure the ETFs represent a significant source of physical or price suppression. reports a total of 22,060,800 GLD shares short as at November 28, which equates to approximately 2.2 million ounces. Compare this to the following:

1. The Societe Generale Gold Hedge Book Analysis Q2-2012 reports that the total mining company short position at 4.89 million ounces (probably a fair bit of this which is included in the COMEX figures).
2. The COMEX open interest is reported at 494,400 contracts, which equals 49,440,000 ounces. The Commerical net short position has averaged between 20 to 25 million ounces this year.
3. A recent Sprott article which concludes “that a large portion of the Western central banks’ stated 23,000 tonnes of gold reserves are merely a paper entry on their balance sheets ...” Now I don’t entirely agree with the methodology or the conclusion (that is for another article), but for those readers who do, consider that 23,000 tonnes equals 739 million ounces.
Finally, the short interest in GLD is not entirely bullion banks but also includes speculators betting on a fall in the gold price along with some arbitrage (spread) trades. This is not unusual, as a look at many tickers on will show - indeed there is short interest in the Sprott Physical Gold and Silver Trusts (very low however).

The result is that the bullion bank’s share of the GLD short position is less than 2.2 million ounces, which in itself is close to irrelevant in relation to COMEX commercial shorts or the OTC London market (even if the actual amount of central bank gold leased is a fraction of Sprott’s figures).
My view, therefore, is that the relatively small size of the short position in GLD shares attributable to bullion banks is an indicator that bullion banks don’t use it as a serious source of borrowing for short selling price manipulations or physical supply, particularly considering that there is no material cost advantage to borrowing GLD versus borrowing gold from other OTC market participants or from central banks; and given GLD is an exchange listed product, borrowing transactions would be more visible than those in the OTC market, tipping one’s hand to other traders.
I would therefore suggest that if one is looking for price suppression mechanics, COMEX and the OTC London market is still where the action is.

Denver Dave did not see the same errors. In fact, he felt that Bron was all wrong on several of his points. Dave has not yet composed a missive as lengthy as Bron's but he did take the time to send along his own, personal conclusions, which I've reprinted below. More of Dave's work can be found at his site:

Mr. Suchecki has made some valid "corrections" regarding the general perception of those who question the legal integrity of GLD/SLV. But he stylistically uses pedantic nitpicking/correcting of Andrew McGuire's loose use of terminology as a device to try and diminish Andrew's comments. However, I would like to point to some issues with Mr. Suchecki's essay that are highly problematic. I preface this by stating that I have only read thru his write-up once and have not studied it. I may or may not take that project on.
1) Mr. Suchecki works for the Perth Mint - a gold custodian, among other functions. I would offer that this circumstance renders him biased toward the precious metals custodial operators and clearly he has to defend industry practices.  That fact in and of itself imbues his commentary on GLD with prejudice.  Other subtle problems with his arguments - and his unwillingness or perhaps lack of knowledge regarding those problems - reflect his obvious partiality.
2) He addresses the short-selling issue by explaining to us in very dry detail how the process of short-selling is supposed to work mechanically, in a perfect world. Not once did he address the issue of naked short-selling. I would like to remind Mr. Suchecki that several of the APs are owners of the DTCC and have been under fire for several years for corrupted management of the DTCC. That is a fact. Because of the insidious opacity with which the DTCC operates, there is no way to verify for sure to what extent GLD short-interest is naked or not. But I would bet him $10,000 that if I were to ask every single retail brokerage hold of GLD shares if they were the owner of those GLD shares, every single one would say yes.
In fact, as I think this through, the short-selling argument Mr. S tries to dispel with technical pedantry, in fact, would support the view that the AP/bullion bank is using short-sold shares to further implement the fractional bullion scheme, naked or not naked.  If you think about it, the original buyer of GLD shares "thinks" he owns his shares.  The short-seller then transfers those shares to a new buyer.  So now you have two end-buyers who think that they own GLD shares.  If there only two shareholders, one with 100,000 shares (minimum basket size for bullion redemption) who is going to be convert those shares to bullion and have it delivered, and a 2nd owner who bought the borrowed shares with the same intent. If they both converted at the same time, then legally, of course, the original buyer would not be entitled to the shares.  His shares have been legally hypothecated.  BUT, if this situation were allowed to stand without making both end-buyers of the GLD shares whole on their bullion, it would likely trigger a collapse of confidence in the brokerage business because no one in their right mind would ever buy stocks that could be hypothecated and re-sold.  It would without equivocation cause the price of gold to go parabolic.
3) Mr. S addresses the audit issue, and I will have lot more to say about this if I decide to really delve into this thoroughly. BUT, if you read through how Inspectorate is retained by the Trust, they do a physical audit once per year. The second audit is more of a paperwork-check, spot-check reconciliation of the Trustee files with the custodial records. That leaves plenty of time during the year to play fractional "shell games" with the bullion that is supposed to be moving in and out of the custodial vault on a weekly basis.
This brings up another issue: the custodian/sub-custodian structure and the lack of legal glue in the legal wording used in the Prospectus to create a full-faith, binding, full-indemnification agreement between the custodian and the sub-custodians and between the custodian and the Trustee/Sponsor and, most important, between the unsophisticated GLD shareholder and the entire operation referred to as GLD. This issue is egregiously problematic and he conveniently ignores it.  Mr. S' explanation for the AP/Custodian/Trustee relationship is a pathetic apology for a system which is exploiting both the unsophisticated retail investors who might otherwise buy physical bullion and mindless investment advisors who sell them GLD for commissions in generated in lieu of recommending the purchase of physical.
Finally, for all who have not read it, Alasdair Macleod wrote a piece last week in which he describes factually how GLD altered its prospectus in order to move regulatory oversight for custody of client assets from the FSA to the LBMA/BoE. This substantially degrades the legal integrity of GLD and SLV (SLV already had that provision). Keep in mind that the true integrity of the legal structure of both trusts has been legitimately questioned by many, starting with James Turk, from GLD's inception. If you read Macleod's article, you'll understand exactly why this change was of significance.
Mr. S was stone silent on that matter.

So, there you have it. The judges at ringside have scored the first round a draw. Perhaps the two contestants will continue their battle in the comments section of this thread? Let's hope so.



القراع عصفور's picture

can you banker shills

please take your crap to the forums.  you have been thoroughly discredited here by almost every one of the respected posters, and you still will not leave.  TF's best don't come over to your site, and try to dissuade your followers (sheep).  that is because we have different agendas - ours is positive, and can stand up to daylight and scrutiny.  your agenda is to obfuscate, and to otherwise render this site useless as a source of knowledge by constantly hijacking the current thread.  Turd - maybe the best answer is the move these jerks forcibly to a forum.

victorthecleaner's picture


MF said about Dave's most recent comment:

Perhaps victor was right in his comment then, as this half assed attempt is not worth much.

Exactly. The original point was that Maguire's piece was inconsistent and full of errors, and so why do you even discuss whether his conclusions have any merit, given they were based on flawed logic.

TF, no need for me to comment because I have already done this:

Back to MF:

Note, I don't advocate for GLD, in fact I think it'sa  terrible idea to hold those shares as when TSHTF you are likely to lose your gold and just be repaid in rapidly depreciating dollars.

I second this view, and I add that this criticism applies to all ETFs and closed end funds, including Sprotts PHYS and PSLV. The problem is that during a proper currency crisis, we might get capital controls, in particular in the foreign exchange market. The stock markets may be closed for a while, and even the London gold fixing might be suspended. In this situation, the trustee of GLD or Sprott can just decide to close down their funds. In this case, the ETFs would be wound down, the physical gold would be sold OTC while the shareholders are paid cash.

I think the risk is high that this will happen to GLD. But also Sprott has already demonstrated that his hedge funds are closer to his heart than his stock market listed closed end funds PHYS and PSLV. So Sprott might also wind down PHYS and sell all the physical gold OTC to his hedge fund and pay his shareholders cash instead.

I am not sure SLV and PSLV would be affected though because in a dollar crisis when there is a run on gold, there may still be plenty of silver to go around. But then, why would you want SLV and PSLV at all...


Turd Ferguson's picture

Here is a link


Here is a link to Dave's post of three years ago, which includes a copy of his report on GLD from 2008.

Motley Fool's picture

The issue at hand

The issue at hand is not whether or not GLD is a good investment, it's not, it's terrible.

The question was regarding the mechanics of how GLD works and if it could be used as a tool of manipulation. This is what Bron spoke about, how GLD works, and what mistakes Maguire made in explaining it.

That is what I think should be discussed.

Motley Fool's picture

The issue at hand


القراع عصفور's picture

if you agree that GLD is a scam,

then, what's the point of arguing the details?

you say, "The issue at hand is not whether or not GLD is a good investment, it's not, it's terrible.

The question was regarding the mechanics of how GLD works and if it could be used as a tool of manipulation. This is what Bron spoke about, how gold works, and what mistakes Maguire made in explaining it.

That is what I think should be discussed."

if you really want to help investors, all you should do, and as simply as possible, is explain to them the difference between physical in your hand, and banker paper.  all your other sideshow bullshit should be taken to a forum.  but you won't do that, will you?  it is because you yourself (VC, MF) are a banker shills.

victorthecleaner's picture

Back to the history lesson

I'd like to come back to my posting with Graeber's talk

on the history of money. In particular the insight that first, there was credit, and only later there were coins.

It is quite understandable that some people get rather worked up about this fact, in particular if they have strong prejudices about the future role of gold and silver. The insight that credit came first and that coined gold and silver was only later introduced by governments, pulls the rug from under the gold/silver standard advocacy. A monetary system in which minted precious metals circulate as medium of exchange is simply not natural. In fact, even when there existed a classical gold standard (basically 145x to 1922), most money was credit, and only the much smaller monetary base consisted of minted gold and silver.

But then, if the medium of exchange is naturally credit, then what are gold (and perhaps silver) good for?

Some of you asked in their responses, why then gold and silver were mined at all? This question turns out to be the key to the understanding of the natural role of gold. Before governments started coining these metals, people created lots of jewellery and little artifacts, primarily from gold. Wealthy people purchased these and kept them as valuable items. Items to be possessed rather than to be spent to purchase goods and services. Rather similar to gemstones, fine art, vintage cars, racing horses, whatever wealthy people own. Posses. Not spend. Only when people traveled long distances (very few traveled at that time), they took these little items of jewelery because you could trade them even where people didn't know you and where you didn't have the same credit as in your local community.

This natural role of gold will also be the future of gold: Items of wealth, owned and possessed outside of the currency, with a market price unrelated to the value of currency (=credit).


Tabberto's picture

BS Tourettes

The BS tourettes has now evolved into just spewing drivel.

Sprott has already demonstrated that his hedge funds are closer to his heart than his stock market listed closed end funds PHYS and PSLV. So Sprott might also wind down PHYS and sell all the physical gold OTC to his hedge fund and pay his shareholders cash instead.

Give me strength.  This crapola helps to show what a angry person you must be.  Your attitude towards a good man with excellent intentions is just peurile and pathetic.  It is a stark reflection on you that you appear to be unable to sense the difference between asshole Cbankers/Political pederast scumbags (especially those in Brussels) and a silver warrior like Eric Sprott.  Maybe it is because he single-handedly keeps the junior silver mining industry funded in difficult capital market conditions - history will reflect better on him than you BS-man, this much is beyond any doubt fortunately.

And Vic, how many times have you been through that silver class action lawsuit you class as BS? Once, twice, three times?  Can we dig into that yet?  Or should you be sent to the corner to shut up too?

Tabberto's picture

As for this...

I am not sure SLV and PSLV would be affected though because in a dollar crisis when there is a run on gold, there may still be plenty of silver to go around.

Hello, earth calling Victor! Sprott buying a few million ounces this last month already sent silver into strong backwardation! If there is a Dollar crisis there may be plenty of Silver to go round? Oh yes, that's right, while we actual residents of planet earth are already buying 50x more physical silver than gold  and the above ground stocks of silver are a fraction of above ground gold I think you may have a point - or it MAY be BS again.

onealpha's picture

I am tired of MF and VC.  I

I am tired of MF and VC.  I vote banishment for 30 days.

GoldMania3000's picture

i just

told one of the sprott guys what victor the cleaner said.  I think they think he's smoking something.

القراع عصفور's picture

back to the history lesson?

who asked for your fucking history lesson?  what is the topic of this thread?  (it does not have to do with cavemen accepting credits for coconuts) i, for one, like the topic that Turd chose!  please, get lost, banker scum:-)

i will gladly make an exception, and welcome hat tips for this post, if you would prefer the thread remain on topic.  it does not matter whether you like me or not - i already am fully aware that i'm an asshole.

ag1969's picture

WTF is happening here?

How do I get a job as a troll?  I have seen news stories about paid trolls and I would not mind getting paid to act like a complete asshole.  Will one of you please PM me with details of whom I can contact to get that gig?  I could use some extra Federal Reserve Debt slavery notes to exchange for real, honest, constitutional money, and I would not need to leave the couch.  Thank you in advance for any referrals.  

question's picture

Just to Break a Sucky Pattern of Spewing Puke


A good read about an interesting man.

This is really cute in an edgy-I thought-way.

Stuck in the Smoke Hole of Our Tipi. It's sung by Shoshoni Elder Oldhands.

vonburpenstein's picture

Re: Bron, Some folks are just loyal to the end...

.....I have a good friend who was a long term accounting manager for B&W... you know, Brown and Williamson - the cigarette manufacturer.  We had many conversations regarding the addictive nature of cigs.  Basically she always employed the "constant denial" approach and TO THIS DAY (they closed down in 2004),  she STILL claims that cigs are NOT addictive! Says you can't prove it!

Anyway, I don't know jack shit about any paper product in the metals business. Doesn't really matter.  Just the thought that one ounce of gold may possibly be sold in the "multiples of 100" is enough to make you want to get the physical.

Sooooooooo, I say either ole Bron is asleep as Turd opines OR he is an excellent example of a COMPANY MAN!

AND one other thought I just had.......whoda thunk big tobacco woulda gotten thumped the way it did a few years back? Maybe one day......

maravich44's picture

pileated wood.....

you might like this

prius_driver's picture

banker shills

Can we get a list of suspected banker shills?  This will make it easy to add to ignore list.

murphy's picture


+100 h/t's too you! Btw, that looked like Mr. Fix's car in the video.

I also agree with ag1969. We could be making money here posting anything on the Main Street thread. As long as it is about what we want to talk about and we choose to address which topics to respond to.

strannick's picture

Bron the shrill shill

Big Bron was pretty quiet for all the years Jason Hommel was trying to get a reply about the Perth Mint's unallocated silver. Now he steps right up to obfuscate a pretty simply issue, Bullion Banks usage of their GLD and SLV to suppress price. Bron has the stupidity to say in his article that GLD gold holdings are unquestionably there, when as JS Kim has pointed out for years, the GLD holdings dont even necessarily have to be physical gold. Bron's a lackey, and purveyor of paper gold. Ignore him.

Prize Fighter's picture

I don't care who has the best

I don't care who has the best interpretation of fraud.  I don't need to know how best to work a scam in order to simply recognize one.  I'm quite sure they have all their legal loopholes and quantum derivative fine print in the right places.  I'm also quite sure that Turdites and FOFOAs are more awake than 95% of the people out there. 

What I'm not sure of is why all this infighting amongst tribes is occurring.  It seems to me there are much larger targets out there who could do with a fraction of either of our truths and be better for it.  I'd like to know why time is wasted on "good intentions" to wake up those who are awake.  Why not use good intentions to rouse the slumbering herds?  They are everywhere and yet some choose to try and dissuade our truthseekers.  Are we really on that wrong of a track here?  Compared to your neighbors or your friends and family, are we the ones who truly need saving?  That's it.  Via con Dios.

DaveInDenver's picture

Here's the truth about the Perth Mint

I just received an email from someone who read my write-up.  He told me about an incident involving the Perth Mint and its custodial services.  TF would know who this is and I know everone on this site has read, and maybe even TF has  posted his work, but he wants to remain anonymous because of Perth Mint's reputation for being "about the nastiest and most litigious people on the planet:"

An investment group who manages bullion positions for some very large holders was given the management responsibilities for a very large bullion account that was being held at the Perth Mint.  When this group informed the Perth Mint about this and was told to hand custody of the account over, the Perth Mint sent the new management group "allocated Perth Mint certificates" in lieu of shipping them the bullion.  The group ordered the Perth Mint to have the bullion on the ramp and ready for shipping within 72 hours.  The Mint claimed that was not possible and could not honor that request.  The new group threatened to go public with this incident if the bullion was not provided asap.  Apparently the PM actually had to produce new bullion in order to fulfill the legal demand and avoid public exposure of this incident. 

He also told me that this same management group has had similar incidents with supposedly vaulted gold at a number of Swiss Banks over the past few years.  We're talking 400 oz. bullion bars, not minted coins or 100 oz. Comex bars. 

This person's final comment was:  "I get sick of reading how righteous and self-aggrandizing these scum bags are at the Perth Mint.  These clowns have more than their fair share of skeletons hidden in their own closets"

Turd, I'd love for you to post that accounting, but if you would rather I post it in the comment section I can do that.  I guarantee you that you would know who sent me that and it's a very credible source.

القراع عصفور's picture

Thank You, Dave in Denver

I read your site every morning - well - check it every morning.  Besides TFMR, and you, only ZH and Jesse get my regular business.  Don't be afraid though - I only strafe TFMR with my profanity laced rants :-)

oops - sorry.  Silver Doctors also.

Motley Fool's picture


Well, that is a interesting story. I would like to hear from Bron as regards the veracity of that tale. 

القراع عصفور's picture

what a jackass!

might as well ask Blythe Masters (again) if JPM's commodities desk manipulates silver.  i am laughing so hard right now, i can hardly type.  i'm not even sure if you are being serious.  if not - thanks for the gutbuster:-)

JY896's picture

Rules to live by (for some)

This is not especially new, and I am sure a better, v.2.0 has been published somewhere -- I just don't have time right now to find it. But it's good enough as a basic primer/initial filter for distinguishing whom you would want to listen to, or spend time debating/responding to. Arbitrary points I see more often on this particular site are highlighted.

Now, it's actually a fun and stimulating exercise to recognize patterns, and respond to manipulation by challenging and articulating my own thoughts  -- but that's just me. But I would encourage  Turd (or anyone else who has spare time) to look up the appearance/posting frequency of specific users, vs. TITS indicator, overall site traffic metrics, as well as the basic AU/AG price movements. My feeling is that it is more tied to specific red-flag issues, but perhaps is influenced by the perceived reach/activity of the site.

As to WHY? Well, pretty much the same reason why PMs are manipulated -- to corral and control the ascent (in this case dissent). To divide and conquer, or at least force the opponent to exert unnecessary energy and mental capacity in response. To encourage fragmentation and, ultimately FUD. Even if no other outcome is achieved, but the pot/sh*t has been stirred up and the FUD level of even a FEW readers has been increased, the mission has been accomplished.


1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.


At least with professional PR-men/women you know exactly what it is they do, and why. It's their JOB to put on the show, complete with dog-and-pony and smoke-and-mirrors. Then again, perhaps wearing uniforms or badges advertising your trade IS so antequated and quaint...
Motley Fool's picture

Sure I'm serious

Sure I'm serious.

You may not hold Bron in high esteem, but I do.

I would be curious as to the identity of this source, but the reasons given seem plausible as to why he does not want his identity revealed.

If for example the source was Andrew Maguire, I would be hesitant to take him at his word, simply because Bron challenging his reputation(as knowledgable in the precious metals market) publicly and that gives him a vested interest in starting a smear. As you must know, in this market reputation is everything. A conflict of interest would exist in this case.

If it were someone unrelated then I am more likely to give credence to their words.

Either way, a reply would be interesting.

Xty's picture

it is beyond belief

nothing but innuendo and I must join Tabberto, I have caught BS Tourettes.

DP - you maybe an asshole, but you are a pileated, bombastic, heartfelt asshole.  heart

And now it is first name basis ... dave, bron, barf


please let it stop ...

silver66's picture

Capital Controls??

Took my Daughter to bank today. TD branch in town. We have debit/id cards that you insert into a reader and type in your code and it verifies who you are. She withdrew 1200 to take down to LCS and exchange for real money. The teller who, by the way I have shoes older than him, asked my daughter for picture ID. Of course Mr Silver66 chirped up as to why, if she had verified she was owner of said account with her debit card and pin. Young fellow said for large transactions they need ID. I started in on him only to be cut off by my daughter with a firm DAD! I don't think $1,200 is large

I then took out some cash and with a grin said "You won't be getting any ID from me"

On way over to LCS we had a chat about capital controls, the more corrupt and bankrupt a system the more they invade your privacy. I pointed out the good thing is she now has money outside the system.

At the LCS the owner had a nice chat with the 2 of us. I filled him in on this bank experience and he said that is more common than I would think, and the invasive questions by tellers are getting worse.

Good news now, couple of beautiful 1/4 oz Canadian maples were had, 10 oz silver and Dad added to her stack as it was her first purchase. Owner then took time to reinforce the need to stack.

Tragically on the way to the car, my daughter was careless with her purchase and dropped it down a storm sewer. Lesson learned


S Roche's picture

I picked a good week....

to give up Turdville.

This about the dumbest thread about a complex subject I have ever seen. Cage Match? Not smart. 

Dave has his own problems

As do we all, and turning a complex subject which some would like to understand into a name-calling free for all is ridiculous.

Syndicate contentComments for "Cage Match: Bron vs. Denver Dave"