the third and concluding part of analysis of the "great" debate:

In Part I, we heard Jeffrey Christian declare “in all of my years of involvement in the gold market, I have never seen any evidence of any efforts to manipulate or suppress the price of gold”. Along with that, I pointed out that Christian did his best to undermine GATA's Bill Murphy – through a steady stream of insulting rhetoric and condescending lectures (contravening the “rules” of the debate).

In Part II, we listened to Christian talk about all the 'good' manipulation of the gold market which he had personally observed – which he vehemently attempted to distinguish from the 'bad' manipulation which he claimed was alleged by GATA. I also added some information which Christian left out: the reasons why the U.S. government and its bankers were engaging in their 'good' manipulation: to help the U.S. government cheat on its finances, and allow it to fund the immoral Vietnam War.

If Christian had stopped at this point, he could have still emerged from the debate with some semblance of his credibility remaining. His categorical denial that any gold manipulation had ever taken place could have been construed by apologists as a 'slip of the tongue': that what Christian meant was only that he had never encountered any 'bad' manipulation.

However, one thing Christian demonstrated consistently throughout the debate was his own arrogance. He divided his time in the debate almost equally in boasting about his own prowess and integrity and denigrating Bill Murphy and GATA. As with most extremely arrogant individuals, Christian is prone to overconfidence – and thus he simply 'over-played his hand'.

http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12070:the-great-debate-part-iii-loose-lips-does-it-again&catid=48:gold-commentary&Itemid=131