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 (30025)	1/20/1998 10:55:00 AM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Joe, you post that url and only minutes before posted <<being mean, vindictive and hateful>> to Larry? When you get personal you lose anything positive you do in support of IPM IMO. People are different and have different perspectives. Learn to listen and attempt to understand what they are saying. You may find that your investment skills improve considerably.

To: Joe Hartenbower who wrote (30025)	1/20/1998 11:07:00 AM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35569

<<I suspect that IPM could do away with their next private placement and simply utilize the resources of some of our famous shorter friends, vindictive former stockholders and well know canadian news letter editors.>> Joe: I would suspect that IPM itself is more liable to be sued than those who have criticized it on the internet. After all, it was IPM that claimed in its press releases and on its web site that it had a recovery process that recovers solid numbers of gold and platinum, that the recovery process shows no degradation at bulk amounts, and that its recovery process is low cost. IPM also said it had a fire assay process that indicates almost 1opt of PM's. These claims by the company resulted in a rise in price of the stock from $2 to $14. When the company acknowledged that these claims were not true, the stock finished its journey back down to $2. My guess is the only reason that they have not been hit by a shareholder lawsuit is because no lawyer sees enough blood to squeeze out of the turnip. Your the one that doesn't get it. The naysayers have been correct. It is the company that has proven to be incorrect.