SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Matt C. Austin who wrote (27537)11/19/1997 1:23:00 AM
From: HungryLion  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 35569
 
Give it up Stauffer. This scam is unravelling and guys like you and
Struthers are being exposed for the frauds you are.

AngryLion



To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (27537)11/19/1997 8:29:00 AM
From: BobS  Respond to of 35569
 
Matt,

It's far from a "little thing". It's a noticeable hole in IPM's press release which infers (to me) B-D did not want to sign-off on even the small numbers that were reported.

If IPM released a PR today that contained confirmation from B-D, it creates a totally different aura as to the validity of the claims (as small as they are). I would immediately accuse IPM of playing with the stock price. I seriously doubt the sell-off would have been as severe if the 11/14/97 PR had contained verification by B-D.

bobs.



To: Matt C. Austin who wrote (27537)11/19/1997 9:58:00 AM
From: Brander  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35569
 
"Are you guys still taking a nap on the BD thing?? Barney was unreachable by phone last Friday. BD will report the same thing as Bateman. "

I have a very difficult time believing this. IPM would certainly have a way to get a hold of BD at anytime if they really wanted to. BD is a large, respected company, reportedly doing very important work for IPM. This press release was obviously very important. IPM certainly could have got through to BD to discuss the report, and I am sure that they did.

Brad