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: GlobalMarine who wrote (26819)	11/16/1997 6:50:00 PM
From: Matt C. Austin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

You'll never have a mining company there until you get rid of JJ and he's made sure that won't happen by keeping the voting rights to the stock he will give to Johnson. JJ is little better than a common theif, go read some of the early posts about his trading rates. He made a trade every 4 days for 3 years. Do some DD before you make statements like you put up.

To: GlobalMarine who wrote (26819)	11/16/1997 7:13:00 PM
From: go4it	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Rand, <<With Friday's press release for IPM, I figured, "What the heck, IPM's management has cost me money, so what's another $75 to start posting on SI.">> If you just signed on with SI then why have you been a memeber since Jul 23, 1997? hmmmmm

To: GlobalMarine who wrote (26819)	11/16/1997 8:17:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Of course, Rand, Naxos had high hopes for Groves and, I believe, another before Johnson-Lett. CHIP abandoned Groves for a garage-shop process developed by an ex-employee of another other co (not Zeolite but something similar?) they have dealt with. One can also question whether Hewitt's process is economical--I really can't buy his mumbo-jumbo price calculations :) Only time will tell if any of the DDs make it. Bob

To: GlobalMarine who wrote (26819)	11/16/1997 11:17:00 PM
From: Raye Derickson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Welcome Rand!! Alot of what you say makes sense, but although IPM's approach costs time and technical resources, a degree of in-house verification & experimentation is wise. Companies can outsource to the extreme as well...a case MAY be Delgratia, and I did not follow their program very much, but they blamed the salting on an outside lab. This may be a poor example (as the problem may have arose in-house), but could it be if a contracted lab notices a low degree of in-house technical work/verification, then the temptation to screw with the results is increased? Comfortable in the fact all the DD's are trying things their own way! Best wishes, Raye