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 (12428)	4/29/1998 8:07:00 PM
From: ShoppinTheNet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark I have read this post three times to give you the benefit of the doubt. Quit frankly, I found it like watching a man throw darts. I know that I stated in my post, that I would defend my position or views. However, I find this post to be the rambling of an emotional cheerleader. Because I feel you are better then this, and the fact that you are being emotional, I am willing to offer you two options. (A) You can give yourself a do over. (B) you can have the honor of creating the last laugh. The choice is up to you!

To: mark silvers who wrote (12428)	4/30/1998 12:08:00 AM
From: ShoppinTheNet	Respond to of 20681

Mark please explain the following remarks made by you. "Actually they can and do. There are a lot of internet stocks that would currently fall into that category." "Your explanation of my analogy of the internet stocks(what a mouthfull!) is not right. Weather or not these stock are a flash in the pan is not relevant. They trade at insane multiples based on future earnings. Almost all analysts are in agreement that they are way overvalued. Naxos cant trade at multiples of earnings because we dont have any. We are not going to have any for a long time. We dont have a resource to make a valuation on. Compared to the market cap of other dirts we WERE overvalued at 10 bucks." So are you saying that Naxos is like internet stocks? That is how I read the first post. But in the second post you seem to indicate that they are not alike. Also what do your points assembled together indicate or prove? How does it prove I was wrong? I need your help on this so I can fully understand your point of view. Next point! "I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. You can have all the plans you want, but if the property doesn't have numbers, it wont be worth squat." This would be obvious, and at that point you would pack up the drill and go home! But what does that have to do with my statement that if a Jr. mining firm had a solid plan and worked the plan and the results were good then the stock would have a steady raise. If the numbers were squat why would you continue to drill? Next point! "Naxos is trying to move forward with a plan now, so I dont know what your point is. As to changing a broken industry? You have got to be kidding. Demanding to change an industry is not a reasonable request of Barrick let alone Naxos." (First) I did not mention Naxos at this point and never said Naxos did not have a plan (this may be inside information now, but oh well - Naxos does have a plan and they are in the process of implementing it) (second) the you have to be kidding part. Wow after reading several thousand posts (12,428 to be exact) the common view has been that Naxos is indeed attempting to change the industry. So are you telling me now that Naxos can not change the industry? I am wondering why the remainder of the points that I made in the post were avoided by you. You may want explore them as a topic for discussion.