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: Ed Devlin who wrote (27274)	11/17/1997 8:35:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

Ed: Here is my biggest disappointment and the reason I sold. We were told we had a repeatable fire assay process that could find ~.80opt, and we were told we had a recovery process that was capable of extracting these levels in bulk amounts. Now we are back to very low grade fire assay and no clue as to where we stand on an extraction process, let alone an economic extraction process. T. Hoare says, "Great news, the company is not a scam, there really is metal in the desert." Excuse me, but did anyone who invested in this company (other than the shorts) really doubt there was metal in the desert? I invested because I was told repeatable .80 opt, and a recovery process that works in bulk amounts. It's pretty simple to me. The company misled us, and all the spin control in the world isn't going to change that. I guess that's why we didn't get much of a speculative runup prior to the announcement. My mistake was thinking that the lack of a runup was due to the shorties' scare tactics. In reality, it was because there was nothing to fuel a runup. Sorry for addressing this to you. Just needed to do some venting. I should be writing this in a letter addressed in a letter to IPM.