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.

Pastimes : Zenyatta Free Speech Board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NuclearCrystals who wrote (16893)	6/9/2017 11:51:32 AM
From: the Chief	1 Recommendation Recommended By hoperrs Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22811

Chief, I don't dispute the numbers you are providing, they are accurate aren't they? So then why would I dispute them.Do they negate what I am saying ............ not at all.Am I blaming you for the price drop? No, I didn't say you were to blame. I said the trend was in and the commentary you have made over time, whether it was projections on timelines or criticism of management ............ they have influence on the portion of the investor pool that look to you for what you refer to as "dd". I don't call what you outlined for the ASTM process as "dd" as an example. I would look at all those comments you made as your opinion on what was taking place in the various committees dealing with the ASTM designation and your opinions shaped a lot of peoples minds and when those opinions didn't mesh up with reality ............... the whipping post was the company, its management and ultimately the share price/stock trend of the day/week/month surrounding your opinions on the matter.It's not blame, it's observation of your influence and the consequence of it. ASTM was a cluster fark from the start. The company gave the impression of "imminence" and it was not. It is a very long drawn out process of using volunteers to draft very heavy documents. If any expectations were raised to "expect imminence" it sure was not from me after going through hours and hours of DD searching for a clue how these people conduct business! ASTM has a phantom end date. Theoretically it could take the "volunteers" who create these documents another year or two to do the final, no one knows or at least on the surface of things, "cares". So if I gave an impression of timeline on ASTM in the last year, it was Don't hold your breath! The only thing I have ever said regarding timelines is with Delays published by CCB, we are on schedule and if one were to try to find an end point for ie CPTAQ it was June 1. So according to the schedule we are 8 days behind schedule right now. Which is not behind schedule at all in the large scheme of things because of the Protestor "intereference" in the process at the moment. I have used logic to suggest we are 20 working days from a decision. Its easily justified assuming again, no more intereference than is being offered right now. The Mining act in Quebec Changed. They wanted to appear to be more transparent and less conflicted. They separated the offices of Approval into their appropriate Ministries to remove any conflict. So the CPTAQ, the Enviro, the Social Impact was all done under the control of MERN. Since the Change they have farmed them out to their original offices no longer under the umbrella of MERN. This did two things. 1) It removed the conflict or appearance of conflict and gave control back to the Ministries that were directly responsible 2) It reduced the work done in the approval process by MERN by about 80% So....... once the work is done at the Ministries in Question 80% of the work that MERN used to do is done for them. So my last Guestimate is based on a couple of factors already mentioned. 1) That the water EA done at a request of GSLR/MRC will be submitted but is not necessary for the process. 2) That CPTAQ is virtually a rubber stamp when the property in question is considered Class 7 and thats the only property they are reclassifying. Lastly, everyone that I have suggested a 20 schedule that owns CCB understands this is a new process for everyone in Quebec and therefore is considered a WAG. Its better than having no published schedule not ammeded one from the company. At least as far as the people I talk too, they want a basic guideline. Let's be clear here Chief, I don't suck up to anybody.I can have a level headed debate with you. Don't need to call you names or be indignant , have disagreement and put my thoughts out there.I can also have disagreement with Bruce Duncan and team without airing it out in public. I would do my airing on the proxy form. There is going to be an AGM at some point so why not do the airing together. You say your collective has upwards of 40 million shares? Right? Well, I'll help your cause out and offer 1.4 million to add to your count and get Duncan voted off the board. Let me know if your collective wants to go forward with removing Duncan at the next AGM. This is twice you have "attacked" a market analysis as a Duncan Analysis. This will be the second time I have corrected you. No its not an attack and what you see as a public Undress is in fact a Market Analysis as to what happened to the shareprice. However in the same breath of being critical of me, you then decide you want to toss Bruce? How is that not one huge PUBLIC UNDRESS of what you perceive to be his performance to date? I am sure you will have some double speak too justify what you have said. But I have never asked Bruce to step down and have always supported him publicly and privately. Bruce knows when its time to go. He wants to retire and will pick someone to run a mining company because he is no miner. So I trust his judgement in this regard and would have him pick his own exit date when he feels its time.