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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe Hartenbower who wrote (29994)	1/19/1998 6:55:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

>> 4) It doesn't matter because $1,000,000 is insignificant compared to the billions in the ground that they can't extract yet and may never be able to if they don't have money to spend to develop an extraction process. << Gerald. You are not playing fair. That's not what I said. See, you are upset with the company and are trying to feel better by blaming the fact you didn't 100 times your money (yet) on the company. Geezeeeeee. It is what you said: Gerald, no offense met, but are you in business or more of a geologist, engineer, etc. $250K is nothing and a million isn't much more when you are focusing on 3 or 4 bil. minimum in PMs. You are focusing on that, are you not? Message 3204008 >> 5) The fact that these loans total 80% of what IPM raised with their last PP doesn't matter because the price is so low that they didn't want to raise more (ignoring the fact that they were forced [why else raise it at this time?] to raise this working capital in the first place, proving the $1,000,000 is significant). << Up to this point, I though you were objective, fair, etc. Obviously, not so. I think you need to put your green eye shades back on, repeat the Microsoft oath to not misrepresent things at leat 10 times, turn off the Internet and go back to programming. You said, as shown below, that they wanted to raise as little as they had to because the market had crashed. The loans were 80% of the amount raised in the Private Placement. If they really raised as little as possible then the amount raised must have been significant to the company. They must have been forced by circumstances to raise this money and not having the million bucks was significant. I don't see were I misrepresented anything, or was non-objective, unfair, etc. OH... bad shot- >>How much were they able to raise in their last pp? < It wasn't how much they could, it was how little they could. Why raise extra money when the market has crashed? Message 3205262