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: Proton who wrote (25376)	11/11/1997 9:27:00 AM
From: Grabs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Nice post Peter. I am a frequent lurker and have always appreciated your levelheadedness. However, I don't agree with getting rid of negative posters because this is supposed to be a forum, not only an IPM love-fest. Here's some relevant news. I spoke to Eli yesterday (he returned a call from me last week), and he said that he expected the report last Friday, or early this week. Then he expected a 24 hour turn-around for a press release once the report was in IPM's hands. Perhaps that's why Ron Struthers and Jay Taylor were also speculating a report this week. Obviously, Eli wouldn't speculate on the reports contents, but we're hoping for the best!!

To: Proton who wrote (25376)	11/11/1997 9:32:00 AM
From: Wildcat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Peter, If you pick up a newspaper and discover that 99% of it is useless do you request the publisher to stop publishing? The publisher, selling 2 million copies a day will reply, "Good point Peter. This will be the last edition." Everything about IPM I have discovered in this thread and verified elsewhere. I believe it serves its purpose. Wildcat

To: Proton who wrote (25376)	11/11/1997 9:47:00 AM
From: Daniel M. Whipple	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Peter, You have the choice not to log-on to SI. I agree about changes you spoke of but no one is forcing you to be a participant on this thread. Confused, Daniel

To: Proton who wrote (25376)	11/11/1997 10:48:00 AM
From: Eva	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Peter, I find it quiet amusing most of the time, but started to just scroll down and read only certain posts, choosing them by author and headline You got some good points, regarding better screening by SI, I am all for it Regards Eva Knieva

To: Proton who wrote (25376)	11/11/1997 10:56:00 AM
From: Rod Currie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Your plea makes sense. Your point about valid names also emphasizes the question, "If an individual will lie about his very own name what would he _not lie about?". Unfortunately, based upon 'existing news data elements' about everything that can be said, analyzed, asked, and reported upon about IPMCF has already been done, ad nauseam. There is nothing left, but the 'wait' for some sort of 'shoe' to drop. What you are witnessing is a bunch of _very nervous emotional people reverting back to their lowest common denominator. On the S10 section of CIS's INVFORUM this data 'exhaustion' was recognized long ago, hence the lack of trafffic and _seemingly lack of interest in this subject over there. However, we know that the interest _is there, all across the board(s). At this point 'waiting' is our best alternative. Those who wish to let off steam may - perhaps it is even theraputic, who knows? In the meantime . . . The 'real news' will be initiated and quickly reflected in IPMCF's unfolding price/volume activity. At this point, that seems to be the only 'sensible thread' to be focusing upon. Hopefully, S.I. will resume its once interesting mixture when the 'tape' finally nods its head. I applaude your plea. I am not optimistic about its future. Good luck, anyway. Rod [Hollywood Beach, Ca.]