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: Larry Brubaker who wrote (27995)	11/22/1997 8:34:00 AM
From: ddl	Respond to of 35569

That one and quite a few other "missrepresentations", if you want to call them that, shure add up to "intentional and misleading information" in my book and there ota be a law. but chances are very good that these guys will soon dissapear in the dust, only to re-appear somewhere else like S. Africa or something. I got a small hit a few years ago over salted core in Kirkland Lake. The president went to the hotel and got pissed with the core box in the back of his pick-up (so he said) and blames it on someone "must have opened and salted the core" while he closed the bar!!! Stock went from .50 to $5.00 in 2 days. Ended up the RCMP did investigate recently and nada, notin, case closed. It's the wild west out there with penny stocks, always was and always will be cause it's just too unruly to regulate. Anyways, you always make better money with the crooks, if you can get in on time, and I did with IPM (by luck). I wonder if they will give me a dead cat bounce? - denis

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (27995)	11/22/1997 9:01:00 AM
From: ddl	Respond to of 35569

Second response Larry... I still would like to read the BD report if not just to see what they say, at least just to see ONE (1) released report by IPM as BD has been their consultant for over 2 years. In all this time IPM has NEVER released a full BD report to it's shareholders. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm - denis

To: Larry Brubaker who wrote (27995)	11/22/1997 9:43:00 AM
From: O. H. Rundell	Respond to of 35569

<< So, it sounds to me like IPM may (or may not) have had a nice chemistry set process that extracted the kind of values they claimed, but not a process that could ever be used for mining. >> Donno, Larry; Le said that the Bateman recovery numbers were "low"; so if it were the same process, maybe the company had just been foolin' about the 0.25+ numbers. Nevertheless, if it was just a "chemistry set" process, what does it say about management that they didn't recognize that the process was unusable for mining? Or did they know, but were just foolin' about that? Do we have lying or terrible judgement, or both? Or can't we stockholders take a joke? I think that if the fire assay had been announced as no go and no alternative had been announced, but if the recovery process HAD worked, we'd be looking at a very nice price for the stock now. (JMO) Not laughin' O. H.