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: Bat Man who wrote (30904)	9/21/2004 11:42:55 AM
From: menanna	Respond to of 39344

Thaks Elmer, I appreciate you comment. Anna

To: Bat Man who wrote (30904)	9/21/2004 12:00:09 PM
From: russwinter	Respond to of 39344

<My two cents, I talked to MFL about this yesterday, but was unable to get Bailey.> Kudos to you for trying, your conclusion is spot on IMO. My recommendation is to sell the stock if you don't start hearing the right answers. <Mark Bailey's narrow vision of trying to start a mine instead of aggressively trying to market the Company to somebody like NEM.> Yep, these guys want to roll the dice and think they will be the next ABX. And look what happens in real life? They get hung up on permitting issues, or trash their stock prices and risk bankrupting themselves on development or supply chain/procurement issues, or inevitable mining glitches. Bailey should adopt the FGX model, get the thing sold (or largely sold), send some money back to shareholders, and hang on to enough to attack some other prospects in Mexico, although maybe at a faster pace than Randy Riefel.I would remind him of the name of the company, "Minefinders" too. Maybe it should be "Minebuilders" now to avoid false advertising?