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 : Copper Fox -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mudguy who wrote (10015)	4/3/2016 1:07:55 AM
From: louel	3 Recommendations Recommended By Hog Head Theotokos Underhill69 Respond to of 10654

Very accurate summary Mud. It is how it is played out not only here, but in about 90% Venture stocks. Statistically less than 10% ever amount to anything. I think what drove the dedication to CUU was the fact that EE committed to financing it all the way to the feasibility which he did. That was used as the glue to bind people to the dream. "Follow the Money, He's a billionaire, He can't be wrong" That was pumped endlessly. What was not taken into acct. was his ACB after warrants and other incentives as compared to buying off the Market at a dollar or more. And that him buying Venture stocks seems to be a recreational activity like the average person spending a night at the Casino. Another was the Five mines into production spectrum. When asked which mines they were and what size ? Was he the CEO of each or simply a director ? No one knew or cared. The conversation would be diverted to the four year clause which was never produced. Accentuating your point, "people who didn't know a rock from mud, became experts overnight " When you mention grab, chip or trenching samples. Many think they are sort of randomly picked to reveal a broad view of the property. That is the farthest thing from the truth. The assays released to the public are selected samples used for promotion. Read those one should keep Bre-X in mind. Just because there is a small chip of high grade mineral doesn't mean there is a mother load below. And when a drill produces a high grade section of gold, doesn't mean it can be mined profitably if it is only 4 inches wide a Half a Km under worthless overburden . " a few are still so deeply ingrained in the pattern of behavior that they continue to try to see the positive." If they can't see it they make it up rather than face reality. Very excellent post Mud.

To: mudguy who wrote (10015)	4/3/2016 5:38:28 PM
From: Hog Head	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

That was an excellent reply to my question Mudguy. You are right, its pretty much the way it went. I did talk to ES a few times and it was always sunshine and unicorns (but not crossing legal lines). Because of his position I assigned way too much weight to what he said and invested more that I should have or didn't sell after the discussion. People in positions like his need to be more careful what they say because they are in a position of trust and they have inside info to base their promoting on? I don't know if you remember Liddy? She lived in Mexico, and her phone was internet based and all her calls were recorded. She had a long and specific conversation with ES, and she posted the transcript on AG. It was reported that ES was furious! The answers were way too optimistic, bordering on material (if they were in fact true). That was a great example of why the "call the office" method shouldn't be allowed. A lot was said that could never go in a NR, and it turned out little of what was said was congruent with reality anyways. The NRs and especially the cautionary notes were much more realistic, the notes being the harbinger of things to come... When you said this: "Sure, Elmer picks up the phone and will talk to you- he is a promoter, first and foremost, so you bet he and all of his penny stock peers will." My first thought this shouldn't be allowed. The BOD or CEO should not be promoters directly - they should have to communicate with shareholders in writing with proper cautionary statements BECAUSE their words hold a lot more influence that a paid promoter like Rick Mills for example. Information from the CEO's mouth holds way too much sway IMHO. With such strong regulations regarding news releases, why should the company be able to say almost anything over the phone (excluding inside or material info)? If this is common on the venture, maybe this is why the exchange's reputation is so bad? I know they are trying to build credibility - this would be a good place to start.