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 (27176)	11/17/1997 1:55:00 PM
From: Brander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Agree CC <eom>

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (27176)	11/17/1997 2:20:00 PM
From: Joe Staniszewski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Claude, through all of the bulls***, you have been the most reasonable voice and get nothing but grief. If we all had followed your advice, there wouldn't be anywhere near the turmoil on this thread. Like Larry B., I believe that Maxam at this point is a much more reasonable way to play the DD's. Good luck to all of you!

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (27176)	11/17/1997 2:22:00 PM
From: Joe Hartenbower	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Claude... >It seems that you cannot appreciate anything else but super positive opinions. Maybe one day, I'll be as positive as you are. But for now, I think the situation still requires prudence< I have held back because you are very popular and influential. I did not think it was useful to get into an argument with you. I received your publication this last weekend and was not impressed with it's sharing of facts, IPM analysis, completeness, veiled recommendations, fairness and over all professionalism. It seemed to me that you are very resistent to something that does not follow the model of the traditional mining and/or exploration stock. I sensed that by including certain things and not others (something to the effect of get from other sources) there was definitely a bias that was not supported by the facts. On the other hand, you have spent much more time on and were much more positive about conventional or traditional juniors and producers which have done absolutely terrible. In fact, gold has dropped significantly since the last recommendations. All I expect is objectivity. Give me the information and I will make my own decisions. You are constantly giving recommendations (still requires prudence)on this forum outside the context of your letter. In fact, unlike Ron, you have refused permission to publish it. Sure you veil it with words like "opionion" but the message is there wether you realize it or not. I do not intend this as an insult. I appreciate your researching and the knowledge you share in your newsletter. Joe