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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Furry Otter who wrote (23830)	10/30/1997 9:11:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 35569

well checks and balances are not perfect. I am not saying gov't exploration. just gov't research. that is what a university is. I resally think they should unmuzsle the AZ dept of mines. they should be free to say what they think is economic or correct as long as they confine it to scientific opinion flowing from found fact. a geo at Az D of M should be able to say "we did not find these platinoids in any tests we took. We doubt the deposit in our geological opinion." Full stop. Its what we pay them for.. not running museums of burgess shale alone. Ont geological survey have made lots of money for companies. They should be allowed to conmtinue to pioneer. BC's depts are more anemic and their industry is not as healthy. ------------------------------------------------------ freedom of speech etc.... there has to be a balance. Its perfectly all right to say I am insane because I doubt Naxos and IPM's results. Its prefectly all right to say its not all right to say that. And to say I don't have the right, that there should be censorship only for your opponents. Its ok to say that. But is it ok to do that? What is it ok to say about it? As long as the rights are always upheld to have an opinion I will agree to allow any statement. But at a certain point its not just words. Words must be acted on.