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 : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Murrelpr who wrote (1552)	3/28/1998 1:53:00 PM
From: David Parkinson	Respond to of 34075

Thanks for being a straight shooter.

To: Murrelpr who wrote (1552)	3/28/1998 2:03:00 PM
From: sunset	Respond to of 34075

i have talked to you several times in the past i find you and sabrina to be class people. people would be well advised to listen to you rather than spout off their doom and gloom assessment.i still think getting the gold to market is the most important thing i am sure the proven reserves will be positive.forget the seesawing of the stock as for the rest of you folks just hang in there and it will happen

To: Murrelpr who wrote (1552)	3/28/1998 2:20:00 PM
From: rjbac	Respond to of 34075

Guy, Thank-you for taking the time to post this information. I pretty much figured the same. It is tough for small companies to hit the numbers monthly. I just hope everything is on the level and that MINE can start producing. I own another gold stock that just started producing and this certainly will help fund exploration etc. It would be great if you would keep everyone informed to MINE's activities as much as your time allows. BAC

To: Murrelpr who wrote (1552)	3/28/1998 2:31:00 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Guy Maybe you can answer my questions why the real reason for the delay ,so I can go back and explain it to our club , also is it true that 1000 oz. a month are being mined as in previous posts by some people, and if so then why are they out trying to raise more money.and ARE they going back in to get new assays,AND if so WHY??? SAM,

To: Murrelpr who wrote (1552)	3/28/1998 2:57:00 PM
From: Hugh M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Guy, thanks for adding your comments to this page. Could you provide any more information in regards to the structure of the debenture. After watching what a 'floorless' Reg s arrangement did to the price of CMYN, an apocalyptic meltdown, I am genuinely concerned. Personally, I can wait another 30 days, but would anticipate the MM's will be shaking and reloading at lower prices, now that they have another month to reposition. For those in the .10-.15 range like myself, I see two strategies. You know the MM will move this lower before they let it run, so sell now and rebuy mid month, or hold and average down mid month. Thanks for everyone's comments. Hugh

To: Murrelpr who wrote (1552)	3/28/1998 4:46:00 PM
From: CIMA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Hi Guy, good to see you on the thread. I have six questions I would like management to answer. 1) The press release clearly indicated samples were not finalized. We had been told that they had been completed and the report was being put together. Do more samples need to be completed before the report can be issued? 2) Will the report include a proven resource estimate? 3) Will there be an expanded probable and inferred resource estimate in the report as well? 4) What are the details of the convertible debenture? 5) Who is the European money and how have they been involved in the company in the past? 6) Management has known about the rain for months and the washed-out roads for weeks/months. Why would they create a deadline when their ability to meet it was out of their control? Why would they continue to tell shareholders the deadline would be met until Thursday, and then Friday, abruptly issue a release that contradicts the assurances they've been giving for weeks? I don't understand why they didn't keep some wiggle room in their statements when they knew the above facts. Perhaps I should E-mail these questions to you as noted in your post. You have my E-mail address, would appreciate a response when you have time. TIA.

To: Murrelpr who wrote (1552)	3/28/1998 5:17:00 PM
From: Mike McFarland	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

Okay okay, so I said I wouldn't post unless I got back into MINE, but I feel compelled to rant one last time: I appreciate and understand your comments Guy, however annoucing such news so close to the close of trading, instead of after the close, stinks. If this is just a little speedbump, than perhaps it should have been issued after the close--than everybody could have read and discussed things and settled down. Don't most reputable large companies make their earnings warnings (for instance) when the market is closed-- that buys everybody time to think rationally. Although I don't take my trading too seriously yet, and certainly don't play with money I cant afford to lose, I sort of feel that the timing of that annoucement was designed to shake out people like me--easily spooked beginning traders. Despite what you say, the whole thing just leaves a bad tase in my mouth. On the other hand, I suppose if everything IS going to hell, then at least it gave a few lucky people like me to get out.

To: Murrelpr who wrote (1552)	3/28/1998 11:44:00 PM
From: Michel Grenier	Respond to of 34075

Hi, Guy. I can apreciate the conditions in which GE is working over there. I am in it because I believed, and still believe to some extent, that the company has a property with great potential and that they will succeed in exploiting it. that is why I am holding to my shares. The part I did not like about the handling of the news on the delay is that as people were still told that the geological report would be available on or before March 31st a few days ago, when it was impossible for the company not to know at that time that the deadline would be missed, especially if more samples remained to be collected. I understand that, depending on the nature of the area assessed, samples already collected may be inconclusive and that more work could be needed. But again, this was certainly known before March 27. Then, why wait to issue a release to that effect? This is the only thing that has shaken my confidence in management's integrity. Delays and difficulties are expected, but I also expect to be told about them. On another matter, people ignored the good news about production financing because it is not only good news. Any loan that may carry stock options has a down side called dilution. Moreover, the focus was the geological report and, what that did not materialize, disappointment was anormal reaction. Anyhow, I am in it until production kicks off and some solid minimal reserve estimates become available, no matter what those reserves are, or until the whole thing proves unfeasible. Thanks for sharing with us your perspective on things. Michel

To: Murrelpr who wrote (1552)	3/29/1998 10:42:00 AM
From: Jon Matz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

Guy, you wrote "Believe me, we have been waiting for the damn thing as much as you..." and "To me the bigger question is can GE make it happen." These quotes don't appear to me to be those of a paid representative. Perhaps you are only trying to show some empathy for "investors", but that is yet to be discerned. Is what we are waiting for a "damn thing" in your opinion due to your concern for us or yourself? It could be construed to indicate a financial concern, either by way of fear of your contract going unpaid or it could be that you too are an investor with a depreciating asset. What exactly is it? The second quote is the most perplexing. I assume that to be successful in PR you must have a working knowledge of law and litigation. A defense attorney would never make a comment like your "bigger question". It would be like saying I believe my client is innocent, unless of course he's guilty. Another question I've asked the thread and has been repeated several times from others is: How is it possible that the pending 1000 assay results could be delayed by weather? The company would have been grossly negligent to have stated that it would be releasing results soon on assays that haven't even been collected yet. If all we are waiting for is the geologists interpretation and they spaced out how important it was to have him available to do so, how can we trust the way they prioritize other decisions? It is already obvious that the company screwed up, just look at the stock price! What we want is an explanation, not excuses. Concerned Investor, Jon