Forum Archive Index - March 2004

["Cristine Kerr" <criskerr@optusnet.com.au>]

Hi Robin, and others following this thread,

 

1) I did hold a mining stock - Intec (INL) whose processes are environmentally friendly. I recently sold and will be looking for re-entry within the next month or two.

 

The patented processes Intec has developed do not employ cyanide. The IGP (Intec gold process) is ideally suited to extracting value from past mining operations, i.e.; metals left in stockpiles above ground (refractory ores) because they were too difficult or too expensive to process, or because the miner was targeting and geared to process only one particular metal.

 

My understanding is limited, but I believe this is because large veins of gold are cost effective to mine where small, irregular quantities weren't (that is, until Intec developed this process).

 

What this means is that Intec's process is able to make use of this planet's readily available resources without contributing additional environmental damage. Intec has estimated approx 30% of the world's gold is in this 'refractory' state.

 

This is one of the primary reasons for my continuing interest in and support of this stock.

 

2) I have nursed one particular idea for some time. I wasn't expecting this discussion to continue, but since it has, you're now going to have to bear with me whilst I explain a concept which is fairly simple in nature but which I believe would provide assistance to those affected by gambling addition:

 

I don't believe gambling addicts ever intend to hurt those they love though this happens as a consequence of their actions. With this in mind, I believe there would be ready acceptance of the following (or similar) programme if it were responsibly introduced:

 

I call it 'Family Saver'

 

Quite simply (because I'm a simple kind of person), each gambling establishment should provide an option for players to register as members of 'Family Saver'.

 

Registration would include identification details of someone other than the member, eg; spouse, child, registered charity. A small percentage of every dollar spent by the registered member would be allocated to their 'Family Saver' holding account in the name of the spouse (or other party) registered as the member's beneficiary.

 

The spouse (or other party) would be the only party capable of setting a password for the account, and accessing the account. Perhaps with an option to view the account online via the internet. (Collectively, all allocated funds would be banked into one trust account monthly - perhaps monitored by a small govt body.)

 

In the first week of December each year, a cheque would be issued to the value of the entire holding of each 'Family Saver' account (eg issued in the spouse's, or other party name).

 

This is just an idea which needs work, however; I believe the basic concept is practical and would deliver real benefit back to the gambler's family around Christmas time each year.

 

If it is provided as an option for those who wish to ensure a percentage is returned to their spouse, children, relatives or even registered charity at the end of the year, I can't perceive why any would complain about it.

 

(Wealthy gamblers could nominate their favourite charity.)

 

Perhaps this is what we should be proposing to our respective govts.

 

Regards,

Cris

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: robin benson

To: sharechat@sharechat.co.nz

Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:37 AM

Subject: Re: [sharechat] Re: Gambling and other BAD things

BTW I don't know if this is based on fact or not but I have heard on
several occasions that Australians are pretty much the planet's biggest
gamblers. If Karyn's claim that "the vast majority of the population"
enjoy gambling in moderation, it lends support to the biggest gamblers
suggestion. Are you talking about the odd lottery ticket and by "vast
majority" what do you actually mean?

Robin

discl. hold no gambling or gold-mining investments.

On 17 Mar 2004, at 04:35, Karyn W wrote:

> Hi
> My point is that there is nothing wrong with supporting the gambling
> industry.  It provides a form of entertainment that the vast majority
> of the population enjoys in moderation, and responsibly.  For most
> people it is a good night out, whether you are visiting a casino, RSL,
> club or pub.  The money spent would otherwise be spent on other types
> of entertainment - so if people choose to spend their money in a pokie
> machine instead of a jukebox, pool table, snacks, or across the bar,
> its their choice.  If they didnt feel that they were being entertained
> in return, then they would stop gambling.  Simply because a small
> group of pathetic losers cant control themselves when they enter a
> casino is no reason to tar and feather the entire industry, or the
> companies who provide the services for the enjoyment of everyone else
> who are capable of exercising personal responsibility.
>
> I have no respect for drug addicts, obese people, alcoholics or
> gambling addicts - as it is those people's choice to be that way.  But
> to hold those people up as an excuse to not invest in pharmaceutical,
> food, beverage, and gambling companies seems to me to be ridiculous. 
> Expecially since those companies redistribute that income back in
> taxes, donations, and dividends.
>
> Maybe it is a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich - but
> then I pay enough in taxes supporting those welfare bludgers in the
> first place, that getting some of it back is hardly unfair :-)
>
> Karyn


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/