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 : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jan A. Van Hummel who wrote (6226)	12/3/1997 5:37:00 PM
From: citydi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

To All, Just a thought - I must not be the only one on this thread that is tired of plowing through 20 posts from and to the Hungry Lion. I agree that anyone has the right to speak, but if nobody answered him, maybe we could cut out at least half of this useless reading. Again, Just a thought. Citydi

To: Jan A. Van Hummel who wrote (6226)	12/3/1997 6:45:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Jan: I agree with everything you said. Naxos must use reputable 3rd parties to prove their claims. My way of thinking about IPM was; IPM was claiming big fire assay and recovery numbers. Behre Dolbear had been around for 3 years; long enough for them to object if what IPM was saying was not true. They did not object; therefore, there must be some credibility to their claims. I was wrong. The only parallel I see with Naxos is that you can't assume that the higher numbers Naxos claims (than have already been verfied) will ultimately be verified just because reputable 3rd parties are doing the verification.