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 (24172)	11/3/1997 7:13:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 35569

Furred one; I was flamed so much on BRE-X that I laid off posting my cautious stuff there, of course it later turned out that it was friends of Walsh who were trying to get me to shut up. So I shut up, and a few more people lost a few million more $, but at least I saved a few. We will wait and see what happens with IPM. I am still not very satisfied with what they have to show and what they have done to inform the SH is minimal and arrogant. The dog and pony show at the AGM was just that, it might have satisfied some people, but it lacked hard verifiable third party data. So the question is are you guys happy to have me make some negative comments and ask some hard questions, or should I go away like the BRE-X touts wanted. Is it the touts(or suspected touts) that want to see me and Charters, and other curious folks exit?? Who has been outed as a tout in the past few months, shorter 1/2 as Lew calls them. What do they want. It would be counter to public interest, so what they want, you should avoid. Do not forget some of you have relatively large amounts of your life equity staked to how this horse runs. Those with a 5% flyer can take a more cavalier attitude. What of those who have 90% in IPM. What if?? Can those people get some risk protection?, or is it priced at a huge premium? Bill

To: Furry Otter who wrote (24172)	11/3/1997 10:32:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Furry, Bill's rumour (whatever it was specifically, he probably has forgotten), if it had anything to do with a certain lack of gold in the Busang, turned out to be true, in fact. But in any case, your comparison doesn't work, since I have posted here not rumour, but fact. It is a fact, a verifiable fact, that in my opinion, based on all evidence presented to me to date, a not inconsiderable amount btw, that the balance of probabilities leads me to believe that IPM is most likely a scam, and further, it is not likely an investment-grade scam. You'd like verification? OK, just ask me. You'd like a second opinion? OK, Larry has shown poor judgement by goading me with personal attacks, thereby encouraging me to hang around here and piss on his stock, an activity which, while great fun, sucks time from more vital and remunerative pursuits of my own, and does not seem to advance his own cause, imho. He and his bud Bob have not been capable of learning from the example of the more clever threaders, like Karl, Zeev, Lurch, and Theo, who posted to me in a cordial tone, and hence received no abuse in exchange. Yes, we'll see each other around, Furry. I'll let the "sleazoid" bit go for now in honour of an old alliance, written in the heat of the moment and all that. Good luck to you. ............ cheers .............. marcos PS ... the "Order of the Coif"-- isn't that a way to refer to judges, or the "old beaks", as we say in Britain?