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 : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (18691)	8/18/2006 4:49:11 PM
From: jackjc	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78411

marcos, Shield Gold is on SEDAR.

To: marcos who wrote (18691)	8/18/2006 4:58:48 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 78411

I think the h-ster can yuk it up in his usual way.. he just can't tell us what is is really thinking ... if he ever did ... come to think of it, what is he really thinking? The things a c-p has to think about are: selective disclosure, conflict of interest, language that can be construed to be an offering of securities, or non 43-101 references.. 43-101 in and of itself must be very carefully considered.. practically the only thing they can do is learn to be very politically generalist and qualify all they say be reference to an already published announcement.. let us say, a c-p says they intend to build a mine.. ok.. if I were a regulator or part of a sec com, I might say you were giving the investor the idea that you could do so, and by that in effect you are inveigling him to buy shares, and where was that assertion said to all the other investors at any time -- to boot? perhaps it is picking the nit, and it is often ignored, but if the volume of these assertions became palpable, then it would be an issue... sans doot.. I know that brokers are NOT supposed to post on the net by exchange rules. They even have to tell their compliance board if they start a donut shop in Tierra del Fuego.. c-p's are not so constrained... EC<:-}