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 : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mark silvers who wrote (11613)	4/8/1998 5:32:00 PM
From: mfgrep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

The past few press releasers have been nothing more than "teasers". Without sufficient information for a formidable release....what the heck....just release the information anyway eh? It always works out this way.....but.....I have a real portfolio and a "wish list" portfolio of stocks that I keep my eye on but did not purchase. I am making a boatload of money on my "faux" portfolio and losing my tail on my real one. lol Anyone want to buy a wheel-barrow full of Naxos shares at 8.22 per? Lemme know, Jason

To: mark silvers who wrote (11613)	4/8/1998 6:25:00 PM
From: scott w. smilen	Respond to of 20681

Hi all! I'm a FTPLTL (that's a first-time poster, long-time lurker in Mike and the Mad Dog jargon). As someone with minimal knowledge regarding mining, I've appreciated much of the analysis on this thread. I'm sure that I won't get an answer to the most elusive question of the first 11,000 some-odd posts (the name and location of citydi's restaurant, of course), so I'll try some more mundane questions regarding this release: 1. Why the need to re-analyze previously analyzed samples? Not only were these depths (for the most part) reported before, but Ledoux did splits on the same samples and reported two values at each depth (March 18 release). The values at 75'-100', 125'-150', and 200'-225' are the same as (or the averages of) the previously reported values. 2. The numbers at the lower depths are a lot higher than before; oddly, these numbers are almost exactly the average of the previously reported J-L numbers at the respective depths (see below). Any explanations? Depth March 18 (J/L) April 8 (SFA) 275-300' .566, .306 (average=.436) .439 300-330' .251, .146 (average=.198) .199 3. The 2.435 oz/ton number seems to be discarded in the current release. Kim previously discussed "hot spots" in this regard; is this no longer considered a viable theory? 4. Finally, how the hell do you do things like set tabs, underline, italicize, etc., when posting? I apologize that I can't get the above numbers aligned properly. The first two numbers at each depth plus the average are the J/L numbers from March 18. The last number in the row is from today's report. s smilen