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: Hog Head who wrote (10019)	4/3/2016 9:08:27 PM
From: specboy2012	3 Recommendations Recommended By Hog Head louel Underhill69 Respond to of 10654

I think the word 'Appear" is about the extent of it. You could hand the OSC a smoking gun and they might just might look at it.They have there process to follow.Internet and bullboards have made their jobs way more complicated as they have not caught up with rules that have any teeth to them for prosecuting.Everything they do takes time,money and legal proceedings.To spend 20k on a scoundrel to fine him 10k seems frivolous.They need to make the rules much more clearer and the fines way more in the pocketbook. A site like SI ,Stockhouse Agoracom that allows these full out pumpers to post lies and false claims to manipulate shareprices up or down need to be accountable along with the poster.Of all the sites SI appears the best to me.Stockhouse has transitioned into pumper only lovefest with technical glitches daily.My rant for the day.Yes hoghead management claim to read the boards especially Mr sheppard of CUU from years ago when vette was posting.He did nothing to stop vette posting lies.....There within is the problem.It is a one way street .Considering the identity of vette was known to them they had the power to stop him posting the fictitious lies.Did they? No

To: Hog Head who wrote (10019)	4/3/2016 9:18:19 PM
From: mudguy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10654

All good points. I'm not sure the promotional aspect will ever disappear. You have to get investors attention and the Venture is a place where companies are clamoring for capital. I do think that one fundamental issue with CUU is the CEO and QP roles are the same person. That is fine for a $10M penny, but this was a over $1B market cap at one point and going to feasibility. The two roles are very different in my mind, and blurring them was a mistake. The QP is a technical role and to be credible you need to get it right. I think that some of the issues here were because the promotional aspects drove, in part, some of the technical decisions. The drilling campaigns are one example of this in my mind. A strong board would ask tough questions and perhaps rein in this natural tendency to blur roles, but I have no sense of how strong this board is. EE is likely token as the majority shareholder and many of the others have left over the years. There also were so many issues with the CUU public releases that it spoke to either a lack of care or the competing and very different roles that one person had to hold (part time, I might add, while holding similar roles in at least one other company). I have rarely seen so many corrections and mistakes in handling public releases. Even the way the conference was hastily arranged after the BFS was released in the days before Christmas. It is astounding how it was handled. Not a recipe for success. Once you stopped listening to the pump, all of this became crystal clear. The sell button was the obvious next step. Much of what I have learned since has made it clear that selling was the right decision for me.