To All,
I have been away from this thread for quite awhile and I must say that its change in tenor is unsettling. After sifting through hundreds of posts I made my first rather long comment a few nights ago which I unfortunately directed at that pathetic worm, Yuben Hadigen. My message was wiped out just before sending it along with his own pitiful offering. I do not see why these posts have to be vaporized. In fact it would be edifying to reread the Shadow's entry of that same night.
Ser,
I do not find your post to be as helpful as others on the thread seem to. In act, I think it is only the most egregious example of several in the past few days which seem to have as their primary goal to discredit Jimmy John and the previous administration. I am not saying that a change would not be of benefit, and apparently even JJ seems to feel this way. But your overt attempt at character assassination is in my opinion very destructive of confidence and cohesion in this company.
"The influx of new "views" since the departure of JJ follows this path of supporting your leader. Some of the issues and points they bring out might hint of impropriety and divert the attention of investors. IMO JJ's inability to properly manage Naxos caused JJ to resign. IMO these allegations of impropriety will depart with him, and his departure will have a very positive effect on NAXOS"
Excuse me, but this is plain rubbish. Why would anyone with the stake that the John family have in this company want to beat the stock down. We will shortly need more financing, and how on earth would a low stock price and a loss of confidence in Naxos help. Our largest shareholder is surely not so moronic as to destroy his main source of wealth in a fit of pique!
Which "allegations of impropriety"? please elaborate. The ASC has accused several insiders on the board of late filing of insider trading and my understanding of this is that their reporting period is so ridiculously short as to catch most insiders in all companies on occasion if the ASC cares to investigate.
Most of all, I would like some idea of where this "inability to properly manage" is so manifestly evident. We all make mistakes, and I certainly am not saying that some things couldn't have been done differently, but I frankly am at a loss to see any major errors of either omission or commission over the past year. Our biggest problem over this period has been the slowness of reporting in assay results. Sh suggests the new administration "push the labs when they are taking their time". I submit that this is completely unreasonable. Clearly the labs have not been able to process and report as expeditiously as we would have hoped, but there is not a damn thing that management could have done about it.
Scott Corey has stated that when the stock plunged "JJ increased his position as more shares were issued." Of course! We should feel indebted to many on the board and among our large shareholders for having thus brought liquidity and operating capital to Naxos when no one else was buying.
Many have felt that information has at times been slow in delivery and often obscure in meaning. I feel that all the members of the board are at fault for this, not just Jimmy John, even though he is the signatory. They all must decide the content and timing of press releases. If the first release by the new management is anything to go by, things have just gone from bad to worse. I cannot recall any previous release generating so much confusion and frustration as their first couple. Exactly what exposure did the material get to the J/L method and how many stages? What purpose is the advisory body to serve? Who are they and how were they chosen? I agree with Richard M. on the priest. He may be the ideal person to be sitting on this body, but since I am given no information about him, or the purpose of the body, I am left only with apprehending the fairly obvious incongruity of a priest as a principal in a very speculative totally "out in left field" junior mining company like Naxos.
I am left with a strong taste that some orchestration is going on here, and I wonder about the nature of relations within the board of directors. I believe that things are starting to look as if the worst is behind us, particularly if more labs can show these good results and the pilot plant soon confirms recovery capability. We certainly do not need internal bickering and acrimony at this time.
My view is that it is time for someone with mining expertise and credibility to be the CEO. But it is only with these latest COC results and plenty of future ones of the same quality that we could attract the right kind of person. In any case until now we have not needed mining expertise because until now we were not in a position to be talking about mining.
As for the personal attacks and vitriol I can only say, "Give it a rest!"
As always wishing you all the best,
Lawrence |
