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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Bidder who wrote (22105)	10/10/2003 8:13:16 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

The point is not what you think of the case, but that there is a case and it has depressed the price of the stock. That is what you MUST NOT DENY. It is like denying there is a sky or an ocean. There is a sky, and it is cloudy, and there is an ocean, and it is rough. On the side of who is right, you had best believe there was data in the file and that no matter who owned it, it was confidential, and parties perusing it had responsibility to it. If they had a program in the area that was advanced, then DON'T LOOK AT THE DATA! Look only at, and request only the files pertaining to the mine. Obviously they looked at, and could have used, more stuff. Newmont didn't care? Who cares whether Newmont "cared" or not? And how do we know this tidbit anyway? Did you phone Pierre Lassonde? Attend a board meeting on the subject? Please let us know. Think for a minim. AQI has these files. They throw a flag on the play. Why? Because they cooked up a dastardly plan out of thin air? Because they thought to themselves that a property 25 miles away could be included in an "area of interest" if it were not contiguous to the property and were never mentioned? Especially they thought that if it were spelt out in the confidentiality that the area of interest of the agreement was 2 kilometers. Of course. They just added a zero and 5. Sure. If there were an area of interest of the mine proper, surely it had to pertain to expansion of the immediate ore system, and not to other data of interest in the file. If the area of interest were there, it still falls to the peruser of the data that any and all information privy to the files is CONFIDENTIAL. The area of interest of the mine ore system is immaterial in this case. ALL other data pertaining to unstaked ground in the area could possibly constrain any peruser of that data under the normal terms of any confidentiality or any fiduciary trust that is established when a company peruses other's data. The question has been asked. Where did IMA get its data or knowledge of the area, and what responsibility did they have to the information of that area, if they found it in the data they looked at in Newmont files. It will be decided in a court of law based on the probabilities and not by our guesswork. It does not have to pass the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" but only has to be based ona preponderance of evidence that accumulated toward a probability of culpability. On that basis so far the evidence is against IMa resource. I am not saying it rules out parallel work, but it is very very thorny even if they were looking around the area at the time. If they had found anything previous, why had they not staked it before taking the dangerous step of looking at data that could constrain their exploration work? Very foolish in my opinion. EC<:-}