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 : Crystallex (KRY) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Valentine who wrote (6897)	3/16/1998 2:40:00 PM
From: TAO	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Valentine If you read my post properly, you will see that I do not disagree with you with respect to what phase of this dispute we are at. I said "I will again reiterate that I have no personal knowledge as to whether this case will go to a hearing or not, but I suggest you read the following and consider the question to follow. I look forward to your interpretation:" I asked for you interpretation of the appeal, which BTW, I have confirmed. If the appeal is successful based on the merits of the argument, what more is there to decide on ? I apologize if I am missing something here but I see no reason for you not to logically and coherently explain your views on the appeal AND the phrasing of the question you supposedly put to Judge Acuna. Unless of course you do not have an explanation and cannot "walk your talk" so to speak. Further suggestions of GAME OVER without explanation simply serve to qualify the opinions of many here, including myself , who feel that you are simply here to stir the pot but do not have a good grip on the handle. One other thing if I may ask, how might your views change if Placer were to announce that their suspension of work was on a more permanent basis? :>)

To: Valentine who wrote (6897)	3/16/1998 2:52:00 PM
From: viper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10836

Valentine, I agree with you 100% it is either a long term trial or game over, hardly a worthwhile bet this close to D-Day and given the inflated market cap. I am very short the stock, and intend to stay short, although I have not added to the position since the mid $6.00 range.

To: Valentine who wrote (6897)	3/16/1998 3:10:00 PM
From: r.edwards	Respond to of 10836

VAL..we are all sold out and have gone short. You can stop posting now. Thanks.

To: Valentine who wrote (6897)	3/16/1998 3:19:00 PM
From: Fulvio Castelli	Respond to of 10836

The following was posted by 'MIC' on StockHouse. If you think you're negative on KRY, you should see some of MIC's posts. He makes you look like a KRY promoter! Anyway, it is common knowledge that MIC's sources are from Placer Dome. It is also interesting to note that the $110 million figure is exactly what PDG claims are its expenses on Las Cristinas. So, considering the source, I thought you might find this an interesting item to mull over: My contact said that he heard somebody talking about a $110M write off. But it is only a rumour, do what you want with it. Michel Like MIC says, this is only a rumour at this stage but wouldn't it prove to be an interesting development if true? :-) Ciao.

To: Valentine who wrote (6897)	3/16/1998 3:28:00 PM
From: knowell	Respond to of 10836

Because Judge Acu¤a took the unusual step of allowing parties other than Crystallex to make submissions (discovery) before the case proceeded to the full PAC, your chronology is out of order. Normally, this discovery phase comes after admission. Instead of your (normal): 1.) admission 2.) discovery 3.) trial 4.) ruling It is: 1.) discovery 2.) admission 3.) appeal admitting the three non-admitted motions 4.) trial 5.) ruling The trial is the full PAC reviewing the submissions and deciding on the legal issues involved. We are in step 4, awaiting step 5. Regards, Ken