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: Tim Hall who wrote (27166)	11/17/1997 1:30:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Respond to of 35569

< I have not stated any position as to my opinion of IPM> ROFLMAO--I needed a good laugh. I asked you to re-post the mailing address, Mr. Hall. Did you violate rules initially? Is it not a public agency?

To: Tim Hall who wrote (27166)	11/17/1997 2:01:00 PM
From: kimberley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Tim, <<You might be interested to know that some of the positve people on this thread are very negative in their emails. They appreciate frank discussion but don't want to be flamed on the thread for asking legitimite questions. A number of people have privately asked me for copies of the BD reports. They were not aware that some of the positive people already had these but would not post them.>> Ah, Tim, surely you've seen what public turmoil a dissenting opinion gives... you can only imagine the private. Re the BD report... this is an interesting thing. I'm glad to see that at least someone has asked to see it. I had to edit this message, because I was going to disagree with you about whether people even care. At least now some do. The best lesson I learned from IPM was to check everything yourself. every nitpicking little detail. BTW, i've stated publicly I have a copy of the report... no one but a few individuals I stay in close contact with asked to see it. i did get a few nice e-mails telling me how stupid i was, though.<g> those were from people who already had the report. best, kim

To: Tim Hall who wrote (27166)	11/17/1997 2:48:00 PM
From: Rod Currie	Respond to of 35569

Tim, It is unfortunate that it is so difficult to rationally discuss both the 'cons' as well as the 'pros' on the junior golds. It is, however, the situation we face on IPM. There has been some confusion on the 15Dec95 Report of Behre Dolbear's. Part of the problem has been that it has, in some cases, 'been separated' into two documents - one giving a summary of the results and the second part being the statisitcal support results, themselves. Most people who saw any portion of the report [and that includes me, initially] saw only the 'conclusions'. I was subsequently sent a Microsoft Excell file [from a private source] on the raw statistics themselves. I mention this because I am unable to verify if indeed this file truly represented the data originally processed. I _assume that the data was correctly represented, my source has been previously reliable, but, obviously, I cannot 'certify' that it was indeed the same data. However . . . _If the data _was correct . . . then there was a rather clear problem with it. While the 'averages' reported were the same as the 'conclusions' indicated there was a wild divergence between the results of the two labs indicated. There was, in fact, absolutely no correlation between the two labs' results. It was hypothesized that perhaps the soil samples were not split, vertically, as they should have been, but across the middle. In this manner, each lab would have received double sets of the same samples, rather than 'separate' examples of each 'set'. This, however, was a 'guess'. It is my understanding that knowlegeable people [whatever that means in this day and age<g>] took the effort to contact both BD and IPM regarding this discrepancy to ask for an explanation. It was also my understanding that neither company would comment about the data. As a result, we were left in the dark to draw our own conclusions. One would have thought, however, that both companies would have immediately attempted to rectify such an obvious and most careless error [if indeed one occurred] as many decisions had keyed off this data. At the very least, 'action' _should have occurred and an answer supplied, post haste. I think that the total lack of response is what privately worried a number of individuals [including myself]. It reflected upon both the professionalism and the credibility of both companies. I am assuming that this might have been an element in the information 'decision process' as to why certain members were 'publicly' positive, yet had major reservations in 'private'. Obviously, without confirming feedback from BD or IPM the responsible parties were reluctant to publicly draw any formal conclusions from their observations. It is truly unfortunate that IPM management does not yet appear to clearly understand the importance of 'how-when-who-why-where-what' and how best to 'present' their findings. One would hope that there are lessons to be learned here. Surely the stormy reaction to the 14 November news release should have been a further indication of the need for 'better communication' . . . Rod [Hollywood Beach, Ca.]