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: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (7408)	12/17/1997 12:21:00 AM
From: Bear Down	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Kim, I have one question and this is the one that can make me a believer (maybe ;-)) It would also seem to elimintae the necessity for so many labs although i think multiple checks are goodd. Why not have ledoux take one sample, "process" and assay half, and just assay the other half? If the difference is so great then NOONE, including me, would have a legitimate reason to doubt the "process". If the numbers from both halves were released and varied soo greatly (say 3 gpt vs. .03 gpt (hypothetical)) then COC would be irrelevant as this would prove the "process" is truly the key. Then I might even buy!!!!!!!!!! Did I say that????????????????

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (7408)	12/17/1997 1:59:00 AM
From: W.F. Schwertley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Kim, I'm confused, my head hurts, and my blood pressure is on the rise from too much inconsistant information. Not long after the press release the SI seemed in harmony with the idea that three more weeks were needed before Ladoux would have time to retest and certify the 3oz/ton numbers. Now we seem to be talking quarters. Is Ladoux unwilling to certify the numbers without corroboration from outside labs? And if so, doesn't this indicate a lack of confidence in Ladoux's own numbers? About the assesment of the Johnson/Lett procedure by Jan. 6. The SI thread is now floating the idea of a renegotiation of the contract. If so, is Johnson willing to renegotiate? And at what cost? Renegotiated contracts tend to cost more than the original. The reason I ask is because I expect the share price to drop with real or imaginary delays. Perhaps it would be best to sell now and buy back more shares at lower prices ;-) WFS

To: Kim W. Brasington who wrote (7408)	12/17/1997 6:34:00 AM
From: Jerry in Omaha	Respond to of 20681

Mr. Brasington; You posted; "Where were we six months ago?" Ok, good question! So I went back to last June 4 when I posted the following: exchange2000.com where I said: "Everyone understands the consequences of failure therefore the necessity for proceding in an orderly, reasoned, step-by-step fashion until we have proven to the world that we have it or we don't. If that takes two months or ten it matters not; such proof is demanded and will be forthcoming in due time." Six months ago the BD supervised drilling program was about to get started. Six months ago there was reference made to a check lab which was going to test in parallel with Ledoux which appears never to have occured. Six months ago IPM looked like a good investment compared to Naxos. I said in an earlier posting, "Maybe it's two more seasons," all the while hoping I was wrong. Last June it seems I said ten more months. Since that takes us up to the beginning of spring, maybe I wasn't that far off. Sometimes I hate it when I'm right. Jerard P