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: reg who wrote (26508)	11/15/1997 6:15:00 PM
From: Chuca Marsh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Where's...THE BEEF! What a broken record you seem to me. You're the middle one in the center ( Round and Raspy One) -doing all the talking, RIGHT??? Chew on the Platinum Report..it takes time...burn your biscats?? Underdo your Buns?? Either - Half Slow..or Half ...FAST. Instant Gratification. Hight HDL low HDL, I bet. Read this and ponder: exchange2000.com Penny wise and POUND Foolish. Where's the Beef. Grams of Fat, I suppose. 04 X .28 is 1.12 GRAMS...so what is the beef..lots of mines ( Carlin in NV) are a quarter to a half GRAM PER TON...and we got 2 OPT silver to back calculate the gold increase value..so we are not at the majic 1 gram per ton WE ARE BETTER...and that "OTHER Lab" could report the PT results at any time-REREAD THE RELEASE..stop yelling...start singing..Reg..G...Reg...G....Reg...G , Golly Gee, Reg-Reggie Jackson just hit a grand slam and you were in the bathroom.....humming... Where's THE BEEF!!! GroundballsChuca(MamaMiathat'saGoodaMeataBalla!)( Round anda RaspyOne!)

To: reg who wrote (26508)	11/15/1997 6:46:00 PM
From: Matt C. Austin	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 35569

Some of you folks are getting real mixed up about the fire assay and what is really there. This fire assay is brand new and the ONLY one that is repeatable(and therefore usable.) They announced a fire assay after the the AGM that read .1+. After a lot of testing, it proved unreliable. After some tinkering, I expect that this new one will improve. The extraction process with the .25 numbers appears to have the same problems. It doesn't give reliable and repeatable numbers so Bateman isn't going to make any sign offs on it. Does that mean the metals aren't there?? Of course not - just that the process needs work or that a new process needs to be devised.

To: reg who wrote (26508)	11/15/1997 10:10:00 PM
From: bistineau_la	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

<.036 is about 1 gram/ton. Marginal at best > Yes but don't confuse this with the real extraction rates. We have seen over and over that the DD fire assay numbers are much less than extraction rates. I read the press release last PM and have spent part of todat reading this thread. I am very impressed with this group. A very intelligent and tight nit group, Can't help but respect the folks here. There are a few exceptions such as Chatters and Grasshole. As most of you have expressed, I was dissappointed with the numbers presented in the report. Thinking back though, we would have given an arm and leg a few months back for a COC. We have it now. Our expectations had been set higher with the extraction results at the AGM. Just wish the press release had contained more assurance that the fire assay numbers don't correlate well with extraction numbers. Hopefully that will come soon. Also look forward to the PT numbers. Best to all. Julius