Westfort Energy Ltd. (WT-T) 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 : Westfort Energy Ltd. (WT-T)

WT 11.54

-0.4%

10:00 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: M. Merriam who wrote (825)	7/18/1998 11:17:00 AM
From: C	Read Replies (1) of 1288

Mike, You seem to have many doubts about the letter written by Mr. Hutchins. I, on the other hand have very few if any doubts regarding the accuracy of his letter. You wrote............. << Full marks for entertaining and imaginative bluster content. Bonus points for liberal use of weasel words. Marked down for lack of informed, reliable commentary.>> I give the highest marks for informed, reliable commentary. <<If the substance of this rebuttal (minus the bluster) had been officially released by Westfort I would have placed much more stock in it. I've seen other company's make official comment when they've been unfairly attacked. Why hasn't Westfort?>> This question could have 100's of answers. Of course only the decision makers have the answer that matters. <<Why did Harvey (reportedly) write: "I wish to reiterate that this refutation is solely my product and that Westfort, Canadian Delta, their officers, employees, agents or representatives have no part in this paper.">> Why do you say (reportedly). I understand it is your nature to be cynical but you can't really think that Mr. Hutchins did not write the letter.......that is going a little overboard. If Mr. Hutchins says he wrote it then he wrote it. Once again Mr. Hutchins is the person that can answer your question. <<I'm guessing that Westfort deliberately made themselves unavailable because they didn't want the rebuttal to be burdened by the things they know and Harvey doesn't.>> Your "guess" could be and probably is totally wrong. << I know that many of the analyst's points are valid.>> The analyst points may be invalid or even imagined and fabricated. <<get my lawyer, who knows much less than I do about the true processes and costs involved to go it alone with the rebuttal?>> Your lawyer may know just as much as you do about the processes and costs. <<imagine and fabricate procedures that I've never heard of>> Maybe they were imagined and fabricated. <<Could Westfort's experts made similar statements out if ignorance?>> Come on Mike........you are really reaching here. << No, their official rebuttal would be very different.>> You don't have any way of knowing this. Another meaningless guess. <<And I'm betting that's exactly why we have no official rebuttal.>> And I am betting that you would lose that bet. The debate could go on and on. Just like the O.J. case.........the only ones who know for sure are the ones who were there. The difference here is that we get to find out. The answer lies in the resources and the bottom line. I have never met Neil Maedel but this one is a total no-brainer, I go with Mr. Hutchins. Mr. Hutchins is as honorable as they come and his knowledge of this industry is vast. In my book everything Mr. Hutchins says in the letter goes down as fact. C

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next