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.

Politics : Gold and Silver Stocks and Related Commentary -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jean East who wrote (4587)	1/30/2005 11:51:03 AM
From: Monsieur46	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18308

Hi everyone ! While reading all the messages, I was wondering if some forum members are following Virginia gold mine . The quote is VIA.TO . The stock is followed by " Le coin des prospecteurs " but i've seen no comment about it on this one . Why ? Is there a reason in particular ? I'd like to get comments ? Thanks!

To: Jean East who wrote (4587)	1/31/2005 6:12:31 AM
From: Michael Bidder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18308

Your numbers are not accurate. If you had bought both stocks two years ago up until today, you would have end up with a 543 % return on IMR compare to a 386 % on AQI. You are correct, I am not going back a full two years. I think my calculations are more representative of the average investor in these stocks. My "back of the envelope calculations" based on when I started posting (IMA at 1.20-1.60 range) and based on volumes that the stock traded. ... could you be more specific about the 'Comprehensive Legal opinions'. Could you give us some references? With a little phoning around one can get a unpublished letter of opinion on the legal case. I think it was a Sprott letter meant for the underwriters of the bought deal financing that fell through. Try Canicord and First Associates. In that letter the writer explained that a legal team concerned with the deal has looked carefully at the Aquiline claims and found them to "be without merit." Subsequent to that other sources have told me that their are other legal opinions floating around. I have yet to see one but I have no doubt they exist and reinforce the original legal opinion. Quite rightly Ralph has strongly set me right that the merits of the case are not all that matters. What the Judge had for breakfast may have more to do with the matter than the details of the events. Sadly I agree with him.