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: Donald Watson, Jr. who wrote (27115)	11/17/1997 12:05:00 PM
From: Matt C. Austin	Respond to of 35569

Don, It's all just transitory. In December this will be just another blip on the chart. The people on margin will get hurt of course. That's the problem with what Schechter and his bunch do to people. They don't care about anything except lining their pockets. They enrich themselves at others pain.

To: Donald Watson, Jr. who wrote (27115)	11/17/1997 12:14:00 PM
From: Joe Hartenbower	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Don > This whole things sucks, the only reason we tanked at all is because IPM had the Balls to stand up to Auric and Say "Your not Going to Rape us for the goods" < Excellent point. However, I think it's looking like BD was also a screwor and IPM was the screwee. If Bateman could do it that quick, why didn't BD? Where was BD when the news relese was being prepared last Friday? Obviously the shorters were privy to some inside information. Did it come from BD? I heard a rumor one time that they didn't want their name associated any longer with IPM because of what it might do to their reputation and the impact that might have on their "old fashioned" type clients (probably MGL, LLL, NCW, TNR, etc.). Looks to me like IPM might have career adjusted BD in a very quite and classy way. Geezeeeeeeeee I just read the Globe via Bloombergski IPM news on the CSW. Excuse me Claude and other conservatives and yesterdayers, but I am getting tired of news distorition, shorters, the VSE, people who use these techniques to FIGHT change, etc.

To: Donald Watson, Jr. who wrote (27115)	11/17/1997 12:37:00 PM
From: Lew Green	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Donald I think your post is reckless and not substantiated by any facts or evidence we know of at this time. We don't even have a yardstick to evaluate "expensive" -- people can be pennywise and pound foolish -- Look at American Airlines brilliant strategy with its last contract, they racked up hundreds of millions in lost revenues and yeilded market share, then caved and gave the workers what they would have taken in the first place. That was not "having the balls" to stand up to a greedy union -- it was bad business. Personally, I'd like to know the numbers before I made that judgement. I think the ability of the Auric assay to be instituted in a meaningful way at a premier lab is much more important than the price. I also think it is assinine to be owning a penny stock and wanting it to go to moon, overnight, with no risk, and at the same time call a vendor with technology "greedy" -- There is plenty of greed to go around here, among us all -- longs, shorts, brokers, management and vendors. Finally,we don't know if this assay developed since Bateman joined the project is as good. Also, to answer albert v's blast that why didn't they tell us about the assays (possible) problems at the AGM, Mr. Furlong _did_ state they had just been presented with the assay -- and would need time to evaluate it but it looked good. However, if price was really the deciding factor, yes, they should have gauged if they could have afforded it _before_ announcing it at the AGM. Personally, I have a hard time believing IPM could not afford anyones fire assay, if it could get a "sign-off" on the meaningful grades. Lew Green