<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gold&#8217;s Two-Faced Disappointment</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2009/September/golds-two-faced-disappointment.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2009/September/golds-two-faced-disappointment.html</link>
	<description>Investment Advice and Investment Research with a Contrarian Point of View</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:55:11 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: rod taylor</title>
		<link>http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2009/September/golds-two-faced-disappointment.html#comment-26525</link>
		<dc:creator>rod taylor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:42:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2009/September/golds-two-faced-disappointment.html#comment-26525</guid>
		<description>the fact that you don&#039;t date this article about gold&#039;s two-faced disappointment is either supreme negligence, which downgrades your analysis, or is a blatantly dishonest attempt to give your article longer shelf life and to cover the inherent inaccuracies it contains. you say gold will continue its current pullback but of course cover yourselves with the usual talk about short term this or that. as to why the gold price didn&#039;t skyrocket during the meltdown - it actually got dragged down. the well known fact is that with all the worthless paper being redeemed the wall street hustlers were forced to deleverage by selling gold.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the fact that you don&#8217;t date this article about gold&#8217;s two-faced disappointment is either supreme negligence, which downgrades your analysis, or is a blatantly dishonest attempt to give your article longer shelf life and to cover the inherent inaccuracies it contains. you say gold will continue its current pullback but of course cover yourselves with the usual talk about short term this or that. as to why the gold price didn&#8217;t skyrocket during the meltdown &#8211; it actually got dragged down. the well known fact is that with all the worthless paper being redeemed the wall street hustlers were forced to deleverage by selling gold.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gold’s Two-Faced Disappointment &#124; INVESTMENT NEWS&#38;IDEAS</title>
		<link>http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2009/September/golds-two-faced-disappointment.html#comment-24706</link>
		<dc:creator>Gold’s Two-Faced Disappointment &#124; INVESTMENT NEWS&#38;IDEAS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:16:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2009/September/golds-two-faced-disappointment.html#comment-24706</guid>
		<description>[...] a original:  Gold’s Two-Faced Disappointment   Share and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a original:  Gold’s Two-Faced Disappointment   Share and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
