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: whatitis who wrote (27896)	11/21/1997 1:03:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Guess nobody at Behre Dolbear is available to answer the phone yet. Maybe everyone is on vacation this week?

To: whatitis who wrote (27896)	11/21/1997 1:26:00 AM
From: go4it	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35569

Betty, Very nice post. I share many of the concerns regarding the criticisms that have been expressed by the longs of this stock and one may ask then why am I still invested in the company ? Simple because the metals are there and they are there in qualitative proportions. I strongly feel that many of the criticisms need to be addressed. Not the ones that hungry lion and the motley crew put out but the ones that IPM share holders have in regards to their company. Not with words but rather with the success of this project. The shorts have gained control of this thread without question. Some have criticised the longs in this thread for not maintaining the battle or some other foolishness about admitting to being wrong. Well I don't feel I was and I doubt any of the others do either. Market psychology has shifted to the negative and in some regards that is good because without focusing on the problems then solutions will never appear. I voiced my dissatisfaction with the company and past decisions that they have made. This is my attempt at helping in an otherwise difficult situation. I don't believe that many of the longs are posting very much these days because we have grown battle wary. I myself have taken a long evaluation on my beliefs. It is impossible to see into anothers heart and know what they believe, what their convictions or motivations are but I don't believe for a second that Lew or Anne or Matt or any of the other longs are here to mislead or lied to us intentially. I value their input which is not to say that I don't question their conclusions. IPM is a technology play. The exact same way that any of the DD's are. We have the mineralization and that is clear to me. The technology will prevail it is as simple as that. We as share holders can add our input to the company at any time we wish just as I have. Instead of being whiners we should be helping our company to succeed. For example : People here have formed letter writing campaigns to people so that our concerns would be addressed. Why should this be any different ? Why not form one with suggestions or demands to the company stating what we want to see ? Suggest that the $25MM that may be won from the lawsuit with AZDOM be used for a stock buy back to minimize the stock dilution. Evaluate the viability of all stock and assetts that the company holds such as shares in other companies and determine whether it has a high potential of giving the share holders of IPM a profitable return for their money if not then liquidate them. These are the things that will benifit us. Richard Mazz and many others have said that everyone here has an alterior motive and I have felt very much out of place because I couldn't find mine. Well now I finally have one so I am feeling much better. I would like to be elected to have all future press releases approved through me <g>. But now ........ Bambi awaits !!!!!!!!!! If I am not back before, then I wish to offer my greetings to everyone that they relish all that is dear to them and gives thanks for the blessings in their lives. HAPPY THANKSGIVING AND WE ARE ALL RICHER THAN WE KNOW!!!

To: whatitis who wrote (27896)	11/21/1997 9:54:00 AM
From: ddl	Respond to of 35569

Betty, I have to admire your tenacity and faith, but still feel it's misdirected. Do you not agree that the press releases of this year ALL lead to a big build up and all supported and indicated an apparent positive outcome? If you don't, then we can always agree to disagree but I won't wait for the chickens to come home to roost...while Lee is there. - denis

To: whatitis who wrote (27896)	11/22/1997 2:05:00 AM
From: whatitis	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 35569

Some food for thought: Reference the 14 Nov 97 press release: Who's idea was it to not release the results of the recovery tests that Bateman performed on the 2 each 20 lb chain of custody samples? This is the question and a very important question it is. ASSUMPTION ONE: Bateman made the decision. The 14 Nov 97 press release seems to imply that Bateman was the one who decided not to release the recovery results although this point is not clear. If this is true, it could be very significant. If the recovery results were less than the assay results, would Bateman risk their reputation to protect IPM by hiding this information, which would be considered bad news by any reasonable person? Would Bateman be a party to such a coverup? If on the other hand, the results were about the same as the assay results, why hide them because they "...do not represent a meaningful average of the total grid." and because they "...should not be used for the purpose of calculating a resource." These same two reasons also apply to the assay results and assay results were released. If alternatively, the recovery results were higher than the assay results, would Bateman be concerned about being a party to hyping the stock by providing high recovery numbers that were not representative of the entire grid? Also,if the recovery numbers were higher than the assay numbers, would NASDAQ and others who had to approve the press release object to the recovery numbers on the grounds that the numbers would hype the stock and were not representative of the entire grid? ASSUMPTION TWO: IPM made the decision. Is this the worst possible scenario? There is only one feasible reason that IPM would not want to disclose the recovery results and that is because the recovery results were lower than the assay results. However, these lower figures would certainly be considered bad news; and, as discussed earlier, would Bateman risk their reputation by being a party to hiding bad recovery numbers? If Bateman was convinced to not include the low recovery results in the press release, would NASDAQ and the other reviewing authorities ask about the recovery numbers and insist on them being included in the press release if they were bad? Is it possible that Bateman made the decision to not include the recovery numbers because the recovery numbers were significantly higher than the assay numbers and Bateman did not want to be a party to hyping the stock with numbers that were not representative of the entire grid and also were obtained by a process that would "...most likely not be used for commercial development of the project."? If the institutions have been briefed on the recovery results that we have not been given, is it against the law for them to trade the stock publicly based on this information until it becomes public knowledge? Is it reasonable that the recovery information could be used to persuade institutions to back IPM with a loan and to not sell their existing holdings? Answer the questions for yourself and draw your own conclusion. If some institutions agree to loan IPM $5 to $10 million in the near future, will this provide some insight helpful in drawing this conclusion? Think for yourself, Rick