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 (24177)	11/3/1997 5:51:00 PM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Gerald, Furry, I agree. I actually find a level of comfort in the fact that IPM either doesn't know how to and/or doesn't play the PR game. watchingforthereportChuck

To: Furry Otter who wrote (24177)	11/3/1997 6:43:00 PM
From: Dave Bissett	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

<<As they have not released anything, they clearly have NO news.>> LOL. Just can't keep that steel trap thinking under wraps for long, huh Furry? (VBG) Seriously, this is the BEST post in days....good not only for a great laugh but also for pointing out a little REALITY. Anybody remember that quaint concept? Dave

To: Furry Otter who wrote (24177)	11/3/1997 7:19:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

Otter, You and others have much used the argument, "If they had bad news, they would have to release it. Period.". I am long and find the argument comforting, but unfortunately doubt its accuracy in the current context. They have been assaying and assaying and assaying for over a year. I think that the only bad news they would be forced to disseminate would be an unequivocal report that "The labs found that the submitted samples contained no gold or PMGs (or less than the previously reported 0.4oz/ton). What I and possibly others fear is that more equivocal reports such as "the analyses were thwarted by...but we haven't given up" or "the results vary widely within and/or between samples" might well be suppressed in the hope that "we will get it right next time". DourBob

To: Furry Otter who wrote (24177)	11/3/1997 9:37:00 PM
From: Brander	Respond to of 35569

Furry, the no news, no release makes the most logical sense, to me. Legally, would they not have to release very good or very bad news? I would think so. There is, however, a Wall Street saying...no news is bad news...not sure where its origins come from, but hope it does not apply here. In this case, the most logical interpretation of no news to me means that they do not have the results back yet, or the results are ambiguous and they are trying to clarify them. Brad