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 (2375)	2/1/2005 10:46:48 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 16207

bullshit, frank. really. "diamond distribution profile" is pure unmitigated horseshit. Can you explain what it means? The grades were different. one was one (the drilling for 100 holes.), the number one. the other was three, the number was 3. Three minus one is two. One and three are really different numbers. They differ by two. They do not have the same distribution profile. All the statistics in the world will not explain that away. All the statistics in the world will not explain why they combined the two pits into one sample. All the statistics in the world will not explain why company directors owned the lab/facility that did the sample processing. really. They tried to say that micro diamonds allowed them to "extrapolate" the grade. It does not. It is a well known principle that micro diamonds do NOT have anything to do with overall grade. Thanks for the one sided reminder. Do me a favour. Reminisce to yourself. EC<:-}

To: Letmebe Frank who wrote (2375)	2/2/2005 5:57:02 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16207

Anytime you flame somebody on the internet for any reason, your keyboard slams shut on exactly what you are. So I guess my clic-clicabulating self-expose was as a crusty old bugger, typed on too long, with seared skin sensitive to any imagined slight, only making himself more jumpy with each passing keystroke. OK, I will begrudgingly admit you may not have had bad intent in dredging up the item for on more swing at at. I must admit the whole sordid affair had its fascination and I must let people play with that bauble no matter how much it stings each time they bat it about with fiendish glee. And it may well be that you are struggling to understand how their coarse graphs, if a truthful comparison of one sample to another, possibly "lie". (The graphs are much too coarse, and yes, they are NOT a comparison of the bulk samples to the drill hole anyway, truthful or not.) So I do take back my bilious bile. Even if you were the ghost of Bernie Cornfeld disguised as Mother Teresa, it would never be appropriate. Reminisce until God sublimates you verily into the rapture, the perfect embodiment of your next-to elysian muse. I will never blame you for it again. It is an everlastingly painful element in me beleaguered life of unutterable and often wilful misunderstanding. but it is not a well remembered conversation, so arch silence, so not like me, is not an effective, convincing rejoinder. I got in the habit of parrying every thrust, lest one pinprick get a barb in what must be for manifold hidden reasons a leathern flesh. I observed what happened to Dukakis. An offended silence can be taken many ways. A public free-for all by post and propaganda is not a drawing room. The slime that commands such undeserved respect in this money community should not be allowed one more advantage to inch forward their underhanded plans of making themselves so quintessentially undeservedly wealthy. So I was careful to riposte each backlash to make sure their game never won. Geobbels shall not be allowed out of his cage. Bullshit must be shown to be bullshit if for nothing else that little children are not led astray. Occasionally, very occasionally, that sort of gun-laying shoots down the wrong plane. I guess it cannot be helped. EC<:-}