| |
Donald I think your post is reckless and not substantiated by any facts or evidence we know of at this time. We don't even have a yardstick to evaluate "expensive" -- people can be pennywise and pound foolish -- Look at American Airlines brilliant strategy with its last contract, they racked up hundreds of millions in lost revenues and yeilded market share, then caved and gave the workers what they would have taken in the first place. That was not "having the balls" to stand up to a greedy union -- it was bad business.
Personally, I'd like to know the numbers before I made that judgement. I think the ability of the Auric assay to be instituted in a meaningful way at a premier lab is much more important than the price. I also think it is assinine to be owning a penny stock and wanting it to go to moon, overnight, with no risk, and at the same time call a vendor with technology "greedy" -- There is plenty of greed to go around here, among us all -- longs, shorts, brokers, management and vendors.
Finally,we don't know if this assay developed since Bateman joined the project is as good. Also, to answer albert v's blast that why didn't they tell us about the assays (possible) problems at the AGM, Mr. Furlong _did_ state they had just been presented with the assay -- and would need time to evaluate it but it looked good. However, if price was really the deciding factor, yes, they should have gauged if they could have afforded it _before_ announcing it at the AGM. Personally, I have a hard time believing IPM could not afford anyones fire assay, if it could get a "sign-off" on the meaningful grades.
Lew Green |
|
