SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) 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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: nempela who wrote (1306)	5/28/1998 2:50:00 PM
From: INFOMAN	Read Replies (3) of 7235

You are having trouble substantiating information as your so-called 'research' is clearly lacking. You have not referred directly to any issue or point for that matter regarding the M1, but have only attempted to support your argument with vague generalisations and subjective quotes from a Minister. You have stated in your post "In a nutshell, expecting the constitution to suddenly produce R100 Million for an heir is unrealistic". Where was it ever stated by myself that the heirs were looking to the Constitutional Court to produce R100 million for the heirs. The current laws are quite adequate to ensure the rights of the heirs. I am quite sure that the Constitutional Court's is not there to assess property value. How come you constantly refer to constitutional experts when you yourself have no idea what the workings of the Constitutional Court are. You obviously have not given these experts the correct information. You err again when you quote a figure of R100 million when it is common knowledge that the proposed offer by SouthernEra is R75 million ($15 million). Is this the valuable research that you are constantly boasting about? You made this mistake twice. Withdrew, lost, capitulated, abandoned ...... it really adds up to the same thing no matter how you try and cloak it. Whichever way you slice it, SUF had no case and withdrew, it's as simple as that. You state that SUF were "very astute in dropping the Section 17 lawsuit". Would you say that this was a tactical withdrawal, advancing in an opposite direction or just losing their argument? Only a fool would pursue a particular action when it is so evident that the cause was lost. That is probably the only smart thing that SUF has done in this whole matter. I am sure that some shareholders do contact companies on a daily basis "to figure out what's going on" but I have my doubts that you are one of them, as the contents of your postings are so inaccurate. Perhaps you should phone one of the shareholders who are more up to date on this matter (maybe Gull). I eagerly await your future postings on information that you are going to 'dig' for. This "information in days long" will not result in the effects you so desire. The opposite will be true as there is still much to be said which I have to date not mentioned.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next