I like how you chopped out part of the sentence to change the meaning, especially after I recently asked you to stop doing that when replying to my messages.

To state that Vale was "named the world's most evil company" without identifying exactly who was naming it thus is prejudicial. The concept of "evil" is highly subjective and, while it might be interesting to speculate about which companies are more "evil" than which others, you offered no evidence for how that informs future returns at all, nor how it informs a value methodology.

If you want to discuss corporate ethics and its relationship, if any, to investment returns, there is another board for that here:

http://boards.fool.co.uk/ethical-investing-50101.aspx

The last post there was almost 3 months ago, which might tell you something about the popularity of such an approach.

Did you ever consider the idea that I raised the matter of ethics/reputation for those who *are* interested in ethics as a component of their investment choice, rather than for those who don't care a fig?

It's possible that there might be some Fools who can perceive a correlation to what you personally happen to find unethical and objective investment performance. I have just never seen any evidence for that on this board and would be interested in your citations to support that idea.

The simple fact is that all miners are extractive and detrimental to any sense of the environment that presumes that we should leave the land exactly as it is. I am just at a loss to understand why and how you think that notion relates to profitability, earnings and returns.

What is the value case for ethical inevsting, since you assume that to be the case by posting ethical allegations here? Please furnish your evidence for that assertion.