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: Tom Frederick who wrote (12413)	4/29/1998 1:14:00 PM
From: Ed Lamb	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Just a thought... The 68 hole drill program is nice to hear and think about but what happens after this is complete? FL is full of non coc drill holes and assays that are now useless according to new management. What if the pilot plant were set up now and started to produce the pm's while waiting for the results of the drill program? IMO if results from the 68 hole drill program are solid and recovery is being shown then all the non coc assays could then be used as viable proof of pm existence. What is not necessary is to wait until after coc drill results to prove recovery when the machinery to prove recovery sets idle at the Nevada site. If this management team is to improve on the prior one then we as shareholders need to hold them accountable and this forum is the place to organize the concerns and actions that can be addressed at the AGM. As to the everyday price not being important, bull excrement, the whole market is overvalued but Naxos shareholders should be grateful for this "true valuation" crap is like eating spam for thanksgiving. To management, time is running out for this story to unfold, without the hype of past years to bring new wide eyed investors, mistakes in direction will hurt ten fold. Please do not let us get to the end of this drill program and then tell us that recovery is the new direction for the summer of 1999. PS Sorry for the ramblings of a been there done that shareholder elamb

To: Tom Frederick who wrote (12413)	4/29/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

I disagree on the non-COC holes. As each new COC hole seems to confirm a lot of the non-COC numbers previously done by others, I think they take on an added importance. My beef is we haven't even finished five holes and we are planning to do 68 more. Shouldn't we wait until we have the results in hand to justify further testing and maybe try to attract a financial partner? I think we'd have a better case if we had five holes done, plans for 68 more and a new CEO. JMHO. JLA