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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (31772)	4/24/1998 7:36:00 PM
From: BillyZoom	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

From the statement to shareholders today..."However, unlike other junior mining companies, IPM's difficulties are magnified by the fact that it has FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS been exploring a new type of precious metals deposit." Nowhere in this release do they "now insist" they didn't know the mineralization was complex.

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (31772)	4/24/1998 8:21:00 PM
From: KipferlMeister	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Richard, I think we're seeing an about face on the "complexity" issue as reflective of the new management. If you remember, Le Furlong was always adamant in saying that IPM was "faced with no greater obstacles than any other mining company." He always downplayed the complex nature of their ore and pursued a traditional approach to mine development. Overall, I don't think it was a bad strategy, and for a long time it did separate them (at least in fund managers' eyes) as being "different" from the other dirts. Things have obviously changed. It sounds like Doyle resorted, at least in part, to a complexity defense in their NASDAQ hearing, and is probably going to run with it from here on out. ...that's my take on it, anyway. -Michael

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (31772)	4/25/1998 12:08:00 AM
From: Dave Bissett	Respond to of 35569

Couldn't agree more Richard. They're still running in circles and throwing up all the dust they can. If not a scam, then the whole story is the worst case of management I could have ever imagined. They've been repeating themselves for a LONG time now. Dave

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (31772)	4/25/1998 10:41:00 AM
From: Proton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Re: Cold Light of Reality I'm going to call that shareholders report exactly what it is, pure horseshit! The company expects to rewrite history by now insisting that they didn't know the mineralization was complex? They knew damn well it was and passing out BS as fact is outrageous. We've had our differences in the past, Richard. This time, the only fault I can find with your analysis is that it may be too kind to Doyle, et al. You would need a scanning electron microscope ("SEM") to find the honesty and integrity of this bunch. I did notice the "FAQ" page has vaporized. How sad: I'm sure many of us looked forward to being "FAQ-ed" once again. I doubt if we could even get CL to support such outrageous crap. I must take issue here: C.L. is, to the best of our knowledge, a woman whose identity was misappropriated by one Frank Stauffer, who used it when touting IPM stock. Let's give her back her name, sullied as it now is. Moon shot? No: Challenger. Pý