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 : GOLDEN PHOENIX MINERALS, GPXM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PayShhhhence who wrote (635)	8/24/2008 1:51:12 PM
From: jrzy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 811

Well done, thorough and specific response to Hubris. I'm with you. However, the falling share price in spite of steady stream of good progress is disturbing.

To: PayShhhhence who wrote (635)	8/25/2008 9:01:53 AM
From: hubris33	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 811

Payshence, it is a real shame to see your continued blind defense of GPXM and their non-standard reporting - it makes you look like a insider or a company shill. You keep backing away from the issue which means that either you are dumber than a box or rocks [which I doubt is the case based on calculations provided] or your agenda is so rabid as to not be willing to admit the fact that a clean set of data has not been provided. You sound exactly like Rob Martin and his apparent obfuscatory remarks at meetings. Why can't GPXM announce production data quarterly and in total like other companies do? It is just that plain and simple. Can you show me a set of the following production data in one release or filing, without a bunch of backward calculations? How many tonnes of ore was processed? What were the average head grades? What were average recoveries? What was the amount sold? What was the average realized price? What are the mine site production costs per pound? Are these unrealistic items for GPXM to report on a quarterly basis? But even in your claim that GPXM does report there you go again with the word "approximate"! One can't get away with any discussion of GPXM without using the word "approximate." Why don't the guys give the "approximate" numbers and then square them up with reality later - but they never do that. But look again at that "camel" I am suppose to be choking on: Golden Phoenix Minerals, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: GPXM - News), manager and majority owner of the Ashdown Project LLC, a Nevada-based molybdenum mine, reports that, as of May 10, 2007, six lots of molybdenum (Mo) concentrate, totaling approximately 267,900 pounds SHEET! There is the darn word again, "approximate" But you miss the point - where is the production data? Huh? I'll wait while you write a two page post where you back calculate "approximate" amounts. Sure those calculations can be produced from this chair as my posting record demonstrates - but that isn't the point. Why should I have to back calculate numbers that most other companies report? Why should I be satisfied with "approximate" production numbers based on "assumptions?" Why can't GPXM report production data? Why must the supporters here defend such bad practices? H3