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: Josephus who wrote (27989)	11/21/1997 5:54:00 PM
From: O. H. Rundell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Hi Jody, Good to see you back. we who have followed the story now know that purposeful manipulation is coming from within the company as it is outside. IMO it is very difficult to guard against being lied to. Some things cannot be verified. Still, when Rod, Kim, Bob T. and I uncovered some startling discrepancies in Le's resume, none of us took the findings sufficiently to heart. Kim and I did lighten up considerably, but for the most part, we were shouted down; and Rod underwent a vicious coordinated attack by Lew, Childers, et al. Someone recently on this thread referred to "Rod's whining about Le's education". An interesting spin on our finding that the resume had been falsified. The sad truth was that NO ONE CARED. (Rebuttals were interesting, to say the least: "I don't care if Le has a college degree or not." -- cleverly avoiding the core issue of truthfulness. Or, "Everyone lies on their resume" -- not true, of course; but perhaps revealing more about the responder than was intended.) Perhaps that's a testiment to the power of The Dream: Just buy a few shares of IPM and you'll be a king; it'll change your life. And whatever you do, don't sell now; don't try to trade or it'll run away from you. O. H. P.S., Jody, I know damn well that you're not stupid.

To: Josephus who wrote (27989)	11/21/1997 7:21:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

"I'm still confused as to why IPM released these low assay numbers. It's like they "wanted" the price to drop. If they could have controlled the release of negative news about bulk tests, etc (perhaps through some means of plausable deniability or something similiar), why then this release? It's too stupid to be stupid." You are not the only one to think that IPM may have deliberately wanted the price to drop. One theory is that this would allow whoever is supposedly going to purchase IPM's PP to get cheap shares. Then IPM announces good news to get the price back up and the purchaser of those debentures will be in the money. Interesting theory and one I wouldn't completely discount. But I'm not sure I would want to bet on it either.

To: Josephus who wrote (27989)	11/21/1997 7:28:00 PM
From: Bob Jagow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Can't be that bad, Jody! Not a hint that your sail's a dragging :) Mike Wendell envisions extraction of catalytic and/or therapeutic micro-clusters from the DDs (less wild than Joe C's wierdness IMO). We may all BE RICH when that comes to pass. Regards -bj

To: Josephus who wrote (27989)	11/22/1997 8:51:00 AM
From: ddl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Jody, sorry for jumping in.... But IMO, IPM has put forward the best face they could with this announcement. Unfortunately, the best that could be reported is low and also cannot be applied for commerical use. If they had something better to say, that's legal, they would have said it I'm sure. I think, they were threading the border line so close and for so long, that finaly Bateman said, "listen, if you guys don't start reported something closer to the truth here, you're gonna end up with one hell of a scam on your hands. All this shit you've been working on is fine on the bench, but it dont work in the field and the longer you wait to say it, the more it's gonna hurt".