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 : ASHTON MINING OF CANADA (ACA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Fairchild who wrote (3841)	2/9/1998 6:22:00 PM
From: Jesse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7966

Very good point, John. If that 136ct/100tonne is with a 0.8mm cutoff to boot, it's even more spectacular! When I referred to Kaiser's clearing this up, I didn't mean due to his clairvoyant insight (which, as you point out, one would almost need to be to decipher this release), I meant 'cause Hillier will individually offer him explanations so that it can be revealed in his private newsletter. .) Another comment re. this release: Message 3383400 ______ 'Twas, in fact, v.good news today kids! Cheers, -j :> PS, Denis-- you're welcome re. links!

To: John Fairchild who wrote (3841)	2/10/1998 10:50:00 PM
From: maintenance	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7966

If you were to exclude one .14c stone from this sample, by drilling one centimeter away for example, the count would have been 68c/100t instead of 136c/t. In other words this count of 136c/100t is statistically meaningless. I am surprised that they stated this in a NR. To me this reduces their credibility. Likewise if there had happened to be one .2c stone in a .05t sample and no other stone at all would they say there is 400c/100t. Is anyone else worried by this nonsense. Cheers