Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Manhattan Minerals (MAN.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dale w ruckle who wrote (3652)	9/5/1999 2:59:00 AM
From: Jeff Dickson	Respond to of 4504

Uh, but Dale, Manhattan is still not in -need- of a financing. I'm not sure if it was here, or Stockhouse, where I speculated that there might be a financing in September when they came back. But on August 8, when Pete and Graham were on the road, they were not on a financing junket. Also back then they weren't planning on going back to TG-1, now they are. Things change. Adding another drill has increased their burn rate, drilling on three separate sites even more, and the new work on TG1 even more. Also back then it looked like the warrants at $6 were in the money, so that would have given them more money. I think Claude and the rest of us others that bother to call the company and share it here are very tolerant of naysayers such as Liz. Liz, however, makes comments like insiders have no shares, the gold should have been visible, VMS deposits are homogeneous, VMS deposits don't cluster, etc. which are factually inaccurate. I'm not sure why people correcting that should bug you, but I'm sorry that it does. What bugs me is that I've asked for her information so I could double check mine, but never got the courtesy of a reply. You can even look back at the messages not too long ago where I suggested that TG1's viability is not certain, so it isn't like Liz is the only naysayer around. As I said, next time I call Mike I will ask why he couldn't say how big the financing is and I'll post it here (so I can dominate the thread some more <evil laugh>). But really, it was pretty darn obvious from the market and when I finally had a chance to call on Friday and started to comment on the market looking like a financing he beat me to it. So he's very forthcoming. I haven't posted how big I heard it to be (not from Mike) because I haven't been able to check the numbers, but since you're interested the speculation is 4 - 5 million shares. If they can raise that kind of money in this market all the power to them. Anyway, I'm gone for a few days so you don't have to worry about me. Maybe when I get back I'll visit with Ed in John's Gultch. Cheers, -jeff

To: dale w ruckle who wrote (3652)	9/5/1999 5:14:00 AM
From: Jeff Dickson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4504

by the way, you missed the next sentence in that quote you made of my post. The paragraph read: "As has been discussed here recently, Manhattan is not in the need of any financings in the near future. If a deal they couldn't refuse came along, then I wouldn't hold them against them if they took it. But that is not the purpose of the visit." I still believe the purpose of the trip to Peru was not explicitly financing, at least that is what my understanding was and is, and I never represented it as anything different. I have enough problems getting my words straight as it is without someone twisting them around on me. Are you a shareholder now, or still here for the entertainment value? Message 10284465 Live and let live, indeed. -jeff