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: Tom Kinakin who wrote (8048)	1/13/1998 3:03:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Tom, I find it interesting that all of LeDouxs results as far as prior certification of both gold and platinum on on the SRK hole are not mentioned. One would think that this fact would be an integral part of the story. Mark

To: Tom Kinakin who wrote (8048)	1/13/1998 3:07:00 PM
From: GlobalMarine	Respond to of 20681

Thanks for the URL, Tom. Negative article overall. Perhaps only a very few bystanders reading it will think of investigating the DD sector; the rest will think "scam" and ignore the DDs, unfortunately. This article had to take some time to write, and it's interesting that it came out right on the morning after the first certified assays, as if it were planned that way.

To: Tom Kinakin who wrote (8048)	1/13/1998 3:49:00 PM
From: Doug Meetmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Tom, Thanks for posting the URL for the article. I must say , the man does not give up. The interesting thing is that Canacaard used to be a big shorter of Naxos (by P. Brown) and the rumor was that Baines was a media negative hypster for Brown. I didn't realize that Canacaard and T. Hoare were related and that a buy recommendation went out in September. Anyway, I doubt that today's article has a significant effect on the stockprice, as Baines has been writing these negative articles for a long time and most people in the stock know about him. On his behalf, I must say that there is much more incriminatory information out there for him to use in his articles than info that would tend to exonerate the desert dirts. Still, that doesnt excuse the fact that he didn't really talk about Ledoux in the fashion that he should have and didn't even mention yesterday's PR. To Jerard: Sorry about the "ten foot" mistake. By the way, on MY behalf, when I wrote that I didn't have the PR in front of me and just copied what was in the text of the message I was responding to. As I recall, that message only mentioned "10 ft" and not 160-165' By the way, I am sorry that some people find attention to detail a nitpicky complaint. You would never see Intel, Microsoft, GE,GM, or any other major company issuing a press release giving ambiguous information such as "Thursday , Jan 16." The reason for that is because the potential for lawsuits is enormous and they need to be wholly accurate. That is was precisely pisses me off about Naxos. There seems to be a pervasive attitude that deemphasizes accuracy but anomalously emphasizes precision (i.e. 0.954). It would be much better if Naxos just reported the value as .95 but got the date right at the end of the article. It is this seemingly uncaring attitude that drives me crazy. Consistent quality is all that I ask for.

To: Tom Kinakin who wrote (8048)	1/13/1998 6:43:00 PM
From: Lawrence Brierley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

0PEN LETTER TO DAVID BAINES of the Vancouver Sun For the second time since you began your relentless polemic against Naxos you have mentioned the internet discussions of the desert dirts. Even though your most recent offering erroneously names the forum "Silicon Valley" (keeping up what is apparently a hallowed tradition in your columns), I take it you or your collaborators are no stranger to the Naxos thread here. That being the case, I have a few things I want to get off my chest. For those of us who know anything about the desert dirt work, it is clear that you are manipulating the available information in important ways. You frequently resort to "hot button" expressions such as "tried to float unorthodox assay methods", "cult-like fervour" and "alchemy"in an effort to disparage without having to do the honest and hard jounalistic work of actually finding facts. You have spent an absolutely huge amount of time and copy on the Naxos story without ever doing the sort of first-hand investigation which would allow you to make an informed decision. You constantly parade the opinions of the dinosaurs of the Canadian mining and mineral investment community. What do you expect these people to say, that the whole foundation stone of their stature and credibility, the standard fire assay, is henceforth irrelevent? How can you be so unreservedly negative about this stock when the limit of your personal investigations was to once make a telephone call to Sierra Labs. Based on the attention you have given it, this is a big story for you, Davey. Why would you never consider a trip down to these areas or at least spend some time with someone who has? It seems to me that a journalist of substance seeks to challenge the received wisdom and not sycophantically give obeisance to the established order. Apart from doing your readers a disservice, this is bloody boring. You do not have to buy into the challenging view, but at least you should give it a fair hearing. With Naxos you have always gone out of your way to create the impression of sleaze. Your imputations about their management, Jimmy John especially, have been particularly egregious. When he was supporting the company with large infusions from his own funds, you were regaling us with tales of his (relatively minor) stock selling. "Failure of legitimate assay labs to confirm these 'significant' assays are often attributed, by the charlatan, to their capability of detecting 'unassayable gold,' while the check assayer cannot.". Only a "yellow journalist" would use a quote like this in a piece about two companies, IPM and Naxos which have actually used legitimate assay labs to prove beyond question that they do in fact have precious metals in concentration in their lands. Your motives in being so one-sided in reporting on this company are certainly open to question. I, for one, am delighted to find you back on your pet hobby horse at this particular juncture. This will refresh the memories of your readers with regard to your convictions about this company at a time when events are likely to prove how bone-headed these convictions are. Keep up the public drivel, Davey! The day is not far off when you won't find a place to hide. A devoted reader.