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 : Canadian Diamond Play Cafi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Letmebe Frank who wrote (2252)	1/7/2005 12:55:09 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16205

I took a lot of flak with people saying that I had said baldly that Winspear was salted. Whereas I did not say that and it was clear that I did not say that, I was bugged by many a long holder for years to say that: a. I had not said it, b. nor did I mean it, c. nor did I have evidence that it was etc.. They did this for two reasons; one, to get any deleterious rumour out of evidence, as in a trial in order to achieve a higher stock price, and two, to try to defame me as a liar completely in order for the promoters to have the eau of purity.. Their reasons for defamation may have had to do more with their intentions of using SI to promote freely and damage my reputation in order to prevent them from doing this. There was at least three or four promoting groups who siezed on this hypocritical, hyper-indignant basting gleefully and used it as a cause celebre. The promoters of such sleaze as Bre-X (yes, they hung out on SI) IPMCF, MYNG and other wonders were all behind the torchlight parade. For this and other reasons, I did not co-operate and deny what did not need denial. If people cannot read posts intelligently, there is no point in helping them out. As well, I had no intentions of purifying their promotion. It was up to management to prove their case as to integrity not for me to back out of what I did not say, committing needless self sacrifice in order to underline their dubious qualities. These things ARE true: 1. I had said, two years before Winspear hit its dyke values that the boulders west of Snap lake that assayed on carat per ton were float from the dyke structure to the north, due to their dispersal pattern, and that Winspear should drill the dyke, and it would assay about one carat per ton. This was on the net on my website for quite a while before Winspear drilled. At the time Winspear was drilling east of the lake in some dubious structure. 2. The two bulk samples were run through a DMS tank plant (dense media) which was set up by company principles. It was NOT beyond arm's length assaying. It was not independent. 3. The two bulk samples were improperly combined in running through the plant. They should have been reported as separate to establish grade variance. 4. All the drill holes reported no more than one carat per ton. 5. The Two bulk samples reported 2 to 3 carats per ton. 6. Around that time, a person was arrested by the RCMP in Saskatchewan with a large quantity of Angolan raw diamonds. This was in the press. We don't know what he was doing with them, or even that the possession per se was illegal. There was something fishy about the possession though. 7. The diamonds from the test above had two separate and distinct diamond types or signatures. 8. Three pipes in the NWT are known to have been salted, or were some samples were strongly suspected to have been salted. Board members of Winspear were on the board of one company that had an incident of disappearing grades. (Yamba and Ranch Lakes were two cases in point of suspected salting.) This is not to say that the board members had anything to do with it.. but. you have to follow co-incidences in this business as it is hard to know anything for sure. 9. Snap lake, at one carat per ton, had probably reached the limit of its stock value, as a production situation, and could/would not be financed in Canada by Canadians. It was not that heavy duty an operation, and would find mining problems it was predicted at the time. 10. There was area potential but I felt it was not my duty to promote it for free. 11. It would have been ridiculously easy to salt the sample to no one's apparent suspicion. Far easier than in gold operations. Far less checkable. To do the samples in house when one is not a producer is a tad suspect and not normally done by jr. explorationists. The standards for reporting by non producing jr. explorationists is far different from producers. People have ragged me for that for about 7 years. They find the net incident funny. I lost tens of thousands of dollars over it, by people misunderstanding the point entirely and demanding retractions, feeling that it had injured their financial standing. What (they said) hurt them was in fact, if it did, people saying that I had said it, and demanding that I either knew something or didn't. When they poo-poo a play, I don't demand what they hell they know I don't see why the hell they have to bug me. I am not terribly good natured about Winspear basting, for the above reasons. Not all the people associated with mining promotion are terribly good people. Some are downright evil. Some even carry guns, or hire people who do. Some jump claims and some steal money. A lot break securities regulations with impunity and many carry grudges for a long time. I have a list of over a hundred companies with whom I will never do business again if I live to be 10,000 years old. Beyond what was said, much more could be said and it isn't nice. There were some serious wars going on and some threatened lawsuits. EC<:-}