Hi Wildcat and All, David was the author of that post. Being a lawyer he was very aware of the legal ramifications, and needless to say, he was appalled at some of the language, and also the failure to answer questions. Opinions negative or positive should be open to discussion, I agree, but the very word discussion means there is questions and answers. Opinions should also always be based on facts, and if someone corrects your set of "facts" then it behooves you to check it out and substantiate it. Merely repeating yourself and bombarding a thread is not substantiating anything. I prefer to listen to Barrick myself. Even though they don't talk much, they carry a big stick. Charters knew that Catherine McLeod and Tom Shrake had talked to Barrick about the overburden and stripping ratios, but he refused to acknowledge that and continued to repeat over and over the same line. Well repetition will never make it a fact.
Someone's post, a little way back, tried to make a point about Barrick not being so smart if they wanted to get into Busang. That was ridiculous, as Barrick would have, as did Freeport McMorran, reserved the option to back out if the deposit did not prove out as stated. This is common practice whenever a major buys out a junior where they have not been a joint-venture partner. Barrick did not get to the lofty position it has, by being a fool. Quite the contrary, they enjoy one of the best, if not the best, reputations in the business for their quality geological staff and their knowledge and ability to ferret out deposits of all types and to extract every possible ounce. There is no comparison with E. Charters opinion and Barrick's opinion, and it takes a colossal ego to think that there is.
I am happy to see some of the threaders come back, and hopefully we will have those who have negative questions and statements also, but can discuss it rationally and in a civil manner. Harassment and verbosity doesn't make you right.
Welcome back Wildcat.
Shirley O
|
