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: Claude Cormier who wrote (25665)	11/12/1997 4:25:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Respond to of 35569

Claude; The SEC is a sea of forensic accountants and stock trackers. As far as assays are concerned they do not know sh*t from shinola. They will get the lowest quote, do a fire assay and condemn the company. The old boy network will tell them how good the fire assay is etc etc, and that will be that. Just like the ASE and naxos. You must take care that the company does in fact know the rock you are dealing with. One way to do it is to make up a sample with the help of a metallurgist that has a known concentration of the metal you want in the rock compound you have. Let them test and then rate them. For this you could make up 10 pounds of sample for the same amount of money as 2 ounces. With 10 pounds you could rate a dozen labs on the same stuff, and know who to deal with. Bill

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (25665)	11/12/1997 6:42:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

Fine but who is gonna ask them to do an audit? Having the company do a sanctimonious oversight and then doublespeak about it is not to be confused with an audit. This assaying patented assay process is all too convenient. We should force them to assay other sample runs to test how good they really are.

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (25665)	11/12/1997 11:24:00 PM
From: Lew Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

<<I think you (E Charters) are wrong to believ that companies like BD and Bateman, or Kilborn for that matter, cannot be trusted, if they are ask to perform an audit.>> Claude, tell me the truth now mon ami, answer three questions yes or no: 1. Does Mr. Charters _sound_ to you with these type of statements like someone who understands mining well? 2. Wouldn't you expect someone with a mining engineering degree to know better than this? 3. (a or b question) Remember the last person to post "SEC, SEC, SEC..." here was Desert Fox (Mason Coggins) who Mr. Chatters recently posted here "seems like a nice fellow to me". So, when looking objectively at Mr. Charters here, in _your_ opinion is he: a. Objectively engaging in a critical constructive debate analyzing facts and data. b. Apparently here to attack the stock and rattle longs at all costs, and possibly lower the effectiveness of the thread. I would really like your honest answer and expect I will get it. Mr. Hall evidently was unable to answer for some reason. Personally, I have no patience for hipocracy. I don't like allegedly scientific and informed professionals who will criticize and disparage _every_ aspect of IPM, it's consultants, or it's SI boosters, but won't dare to turn one critical eye on even the most embarassingly illinformed,illogical or senile detractor. Don't let me down CC. Tell it like it is. LG