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: JP who wrote (4717)	4/3/1998 1:17:00 AM
From: Al	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7966

JP, the wording he uses gives his newsletters a Teflon shield where it is hard to make anything stick. However I will try my best to make you understand where I'm coming from. Here is the quote: >Ashton knows very well how sensitive the market is >to certain kinds of information, and has made it a policy to keep a >lid not just on new fundamental information, but also the precise >timing of its disclosure. The leak to which I referred did not in my >view contain material information that would affect investment >decisions. But it also did not qualify as the sort of details a >company might reveal on a selective basis that would assist with the >interpretation of a project's potential, and which are welcome >contributions to the public domain through investor forums, brokerage >research or newsletter commentary. 1. He refers the "leak" as not containing material information, and he continues with the word "But" into the sentence "it also did not qualify as the sort of details a company might reveal on a selective basis that would assist with the interpretation of a project's potential.." It looks to me like he would be saying that it's not something that the company would consider relevant enough to release if we considered that selective basis to mean the release of selective information. Accordingly this would mean he is saying it's a leak because it's not something that the company would want to release. Why is he redefining the word "leak" here? 2. Notice the use of the word "reveal" instead of something more appropriate like `release'. If the company decided to release any news to the public. 3. Continuing from no. 1 we have "..and which are welcome contributions to the public domain through investor forums, brokerage research or newsletter commentary" The use of the words "and which" refers back to the information, not the "interpretation of a project's potential" since he would just have said "which", and not used the plural "are" and "contributions" for the word "interpretation". Now here's the important part, he says that these details would be available "through" investor forums, brokerage research or newsletter commentary. Why would public information be available "through" these mediums if it were public? Hopefully that explains my line of reasoning. Just to confirm, I do not consider the information that Frank posts as provided from a "leak". I think they are rumors since he has been wrong sometimes if you look back at his posts. If they were from an insider who had access to factual information, I hardly doubt he would be wrong. As other posters have pointed out, Frank has never posted any exact figures which more so proves that these are just rumors. Remember Frank's doing the individual investor, who doesn't have time to go hunting after tidbits of information, a favor by posting information and opinions he has on a daily basis for anyone to read. He doesn't have to do this if he doesn't want to folks.