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 : Western Copper Holdings Ltd. T.WTC -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.r. earle who wrote (188)	2/7/1998 1:04:00 AM
From: c.r. earle	Respond to of 401

James, To all the lurkers that maybe somewhat less aware of the parallel that you are implying with your comments regarding CTQ and BB's recommendation for same. There is a significant difference between the two which you conveniently fail to acknowledge. CTQ had staged a very impressive climb surpassing the $10. with very limited drilling and BB continually commented that he was ahead of the play at the time. Now I am not going to defend his position regarding CTQ, I would also have preferred to have had a more balanced approach to its potential. But the results from WTC have been very impressive to say the least far surpassing anything CTQ was ever able to find. Secondly the climate at that time was also significantly different. Plays were being paid for with the belief of a find already built in and the 'prove it to me' was secondary in importance. We had many examples of this pattern, CTW a prime example, and many lessor ones. Most players in the junior market are looking for that one find that will be the 'lotto ticket'. And you always have someone denying the obvious (like 150 meters plus of mineralization). And these finds do not come along very often. But the reality is, that every so often they do, there was a Diamond Fields, there was a Diamet, there was an Arequipa. And there was always someone (foolishly so) during that time that was skeptical of each and everyone one of those plays. And all the while they were being proven wrong, they kept telling the world how much they didn't understand. And furthermore we are not talking about CTQ here, we are talking about WTC, your comparison is irrelevant. Now I am not trying to place WTC in the elite category of the stocks I have mentioned above,.... not just yet. But the intersections that WTC has been pulling out of those holes is very significant, reputedly the largest intersects in South American history. It was obvious from the very first drill hole that the potential for something very large was there. You just do not pull out those types of assays everyday. I will be the first to admit that further work needs to be done to determine tonnage potential, but to all the naysayers (shorts, that is if there are any left) world class deposits are found, rarely but they are found. The only real question that remains- are you going to be part of the next one!?

To: c.r. earle who wrote (188)	2/7/1998 3:54:00 PM
From: james paterson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 401

Alberto, In all fairness, you are right. DFR was 1 of my big winners in 96.. You have to admit though that his record lately is pathetic. As far as I.m concerned he blew his credibility with CTQ--recommending it from 19 all the way down. I was short WTC from 7.70 & covered @ 9.15. I'm short again from 9.85. I may have to cover early Mon. morn. This thing smells to promotional to me. The POC is in the dumpster & not expected to recover anytime soon. The mine in Mexico would be very expensive to develop & WTC would only end up with 22%. I think that an investment house wants to do a financing for them & has manipulated the share price artificially high. I may well be wrong. Good luck. James