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 (27258)	11/17/1997 8:33:00 PM
From: Lew Green	Respond to of 35569

<<I said in a post yesterday that I heard 2 months ago that Auric wanted a fortune for there technique.>> Don, don't believe everything you hear out of Michigan, the rumors there may be well meaning but have often been inaccurate. For that matter the rumors from everywhere, all have to be taken with a grain of salt, short and long IMO. <<I dont think IPM was ready to hand over big bucks for Auric only to hear everone Say " Who the Hell is Auric" We paid how much for them?>> Give me a break, IPM proudly trotted AuRic out at AGM and along with Dr. Sam Shaw it saved that day. But this is a rediculous argument, they could buy an assay from Santa Claus and IF IT WORKS have it performed at the most prestigious lab on COC ore from God! You could have a Bateman, BD or such "sign-off" on results from anyone's assay. Johnson-Lett are not prestigous, but if LaDoux runs the assay and BD delivers the dirt -- no one's going to go, "who the hell is Johnson-Lett"! Think about it. <<Also Ron Struthers saidin so many words (Did not use the term balls) that Auric was overpriced>> Well I meant to call Ron about that one when I read it. First, he directly contradicts the IPM FAQ -- saying the assay worked fine. Second, what do you call expensive? I think Johnson-Lett charged over a million ultimately for their assay (not recovery). Is that "too expensive". If Ron is right and the Auric assay worked fine, then wouldn't a PR with .X numbers have been worth that? We'd have kept 30 million on our market cap, and may have gained. Unless you or Ron can lay out what the $ were, and then interview Auric for some confirmation, I think it is foolish to speculate in this area and we should stay out of it. I'd prefer to think the IPM FAQ had it right, as efficacy is all that matters right now, but we really can't know the whole story. <<and that Batemen said Give us the Ball.>> No. I said that. And I do believe that has happened. Which is fine, but Bateman should bounce whatever _works_. Period. And don't think Bateman is going to be cheap! But they do have a great pedigree and their involvement is a big plus IMO. <<...overnight I wanted to make some bucks.>> My point was simply it's unfair for us to judge someone "too greedy" without knowing the details -- and we don't. Best, Lew