International Precious Metals (IPMCF) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : International Precious Metals (IPMCF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bob Jagow who wrote (26616)	11/16/1997 1:47:00 AM
From: Albert V	Read Replies (2) of 35569

Please read Claude's post #25587. This company verified in press release after press release that it had an assay that was repeatable and scalable and pulled .25 ounces repeatedly. Press releases in FEB MARCH AND JUNE were consistent as far at this goes. Now this screwed up company issues a PR saying they've got .038, with COC. BIG BLOODY DEAL. They were pulling out .04 two years ago weren't they? Whats the difference? It was COC BY BD back then wasn't it? I Don't see any improvement. I see no platinum numbers, I see no palladium numbers. I see no mention of lycopodium or BD. I do see an extremely limited number of samples. I don't see any of the results from the deep holes they were supposed to have drilled a long time ago. It seems obvious that IPMC lied to us in their previous PRs when they said they had a repeatable assay that could pull .25. Can we sue them over this? Anyone who thinks this stock is not going to tank starting Monday is nuts. Why do you think maxxam has only stated it has numbers in the same range as now being reported by IPM? They are just to the south of Ipm aren't they? Albert

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next