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 : MINK MINERAL RESOURCES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George S who wrote (366)	3/20/1998 11:22:00 PM
From: Bylo Selhi	Respond to of 637

George: There is no need to invoke that woman's name. S/he might come back to bite... a scorned woman is like a rattlesnake. Mink made a big mistake by firing her. With the big mouth of hers, s/he would've pumped the stock to its new highs in a matter of weeks... and s/he was so cheap in comparison with the pro's... all she was asking for was a reimbursement of her costs. A home-grown pump and dump artist with a keyboard and plenty of free time on her hands. S/he wouldn't eat much and wouldn't drink much... s/he would just keep typing and sending all over the cyberspace her virus-free hypes every fifteen minutes, 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. All moms and pops (and their sons and daughters-in-law) would be buying MKM stock like crazy. Of course, s/he would eventually SELL and TELL... and the rest would be history. Nonetheless, Mink had lost a cheap, but very effective promoter... they will never find another character like her. I am not sure what is a correct pronoun to designate her... s/he was so ambiguous... or was it ambisexual? My reply to those who keep saying that s/he was a nut case and a cyberbitch is this: So what? Forget the dump and remember the pump... It was sooo goood... I wonder what happened to a truckload of cheap T-shirts she bought a week before s/he sold and told. You know, those with Orly's face in the front... the back side was intentionally left blank I think. If s/he was reimbursed for those T-shirts, it is legally Mink's property now. The company could distribute those T-shirts, in lieu of the stock dividends, to all the shareholders of record. Have the suckers promote their own stock if they want to get their investments back. Have the Mink's lawyer call her right away and demand that all the T-shirts with Orly's face be returned immediately to the company's coffers. Heck with the diamonds, I want my shirt back. :-)) By the way, there is another free Mink forum in the cyberspace: stockhouse.com -am

To: George S who wrote (366)	3/21/1998 8:59:00 AM
From: Dan P	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 637

George: Thanks for the clarification. That is my understanding of the % participation by Mink assuming a pipe goes into production. In any event, 39 % of a producing diamond mine is potentially huge! Incidentally, I believe that Mr. Andrews should clarify where he is coming from as far as his posts are concerned. Since he was formerly associated with Mink, and now is no longer, I have to question the motives behind his posts, which are characterized by a lot of capitalized words and language that is a little difficult to understand. With all due respect, is he angry with the company etc.? If his posts are underlain by animosity toward the company and its management, I personally cannot evaluate his posts with any degree of certainty. If there are gem-quality diamonds in the core, all of this talk will be moot, and we will have a screamer. I have to smile a little as I read about all of the excitement about the Alberta Diamond play where we are talking about tiny diamonds, whereas no one seems to be paying attention to the 100 + carat diamonds found in Mali!! Reminds me of the Congo, as well, where copper ores grading 8-10 % are not unusual, whereas in the Americas, we get excited about 1% levels. Regards Dan

To: George S who wrote (366)	3/21/1998 10:40:00 AM
From: Jim Andrews	Respond to of 637

George Finally we are getting some where.IN SHORT if there are no diamonds mink owns 49% and pays the majority of the costs .IF there are diamonds A new company will be formed where the most mink could own would be 39%.THat is the point I have been trying to make READ THE SMALL PRINT AS THE BIG PRINT MAY NOT BE ACCURATE.I AM PLEASED YOU AGREE?????? Rose Morgan Was 100% right from a monitary stand point And in here own way TRIED to warn the people she also promoted this stock TO the MGT here is Highly SUSPECT IF I remember correctly.I am not here to defend ROSE or any one else.GEorge GREAT EFFORT TO ATTEMPT TO SLIDE AWAY FROM THE FACTS BY USING ROSE. THE TRUTH IS 49% OF NOTHING IS STILL NOTHING BUT 39% PLUS MGT FEES and other negotiated give aways will be of value.

To: George S who wrote (366)	3/21/1998 1:05:00 PM
From: bc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 637

George and Daniel, Thanks for the informative posts, and comments. Have been a Mink shareholder for quite awhile now, and have dropped in behind the scenes on this thread occasionally. You guys sound like you might be able to answer a question I am pondering right now. How confident can one be as to the downstream diamonds' discovery, being sourced back to Kassama / Sansanto ? Are there other indications that the Kassama, and the Sansanto K-Pipes have passed through a diamond stability field such as mineral indicators ? Regards, Steve