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: Pianoman1997 who wrote (27929)	2/15/2004 10:32:42 AM
From: loantech	Respond to of 39344

Dan because Michael knows "the future" he only needs to buy IMA. Michael may be from Philadelphia because he knows exactly what the courts are going to do before they have even done it. I do not see AQI on the losing end here as they have only asked for information whereas IMA may or may not have acted improperly on confidential information. So let the courts decide and as Michael should know even in cases such as OJ we cannot say the verdict is just or favors public opinion. So let IMA owners beware.

To: Pianoman1997 who wrote (27929)	2/15/2004 8:14:23 PM
From: Michael Bidder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39344

<<<... then why not hedging your bet by picking some AQI which is a good stock without Navidad on its own merit....>>> One pick is tough enough! I waited years to reenter the stock market in a serious way. I have no plan on "pickin up some AQI" or any other stock unless it meets my criteria. Even then the worry and the stress of being in another stock is not worth it. As for the value of AQI. I am not impressed. They have a poor record finding properties. Now they have a big delution and the burn rate will increase. If they wrote a letter to IMA abandoning there claim, or inference or whatever it is, they would drop below $1. I think what they are doing is sleazy in the least. Probably illegal as corporate mischief, impossible to prove. Calcatreau doesn't inspire, nor do I think it will prove up to be minable. In this case the company is nothing more than a shell run by litigious &^&%&^%%%.