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 : SOUTHERNERA (t.SUF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: INFOMAN who wrote (1067)	5/8/1998 3:27:00 PM
From: Goalie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

Infoman, its becoming tiresome to find you groping for truth... (1) You said: <I refer to their (DME) latest press release which has been quoted on by numerous papers, and which has also been posted on this thread.> -- Just because you posted a press release on this thread, without attribution, doesn't make it real! What newspapers referred to it? How did you know the contents of the news release days BEFORE it was issued? You've been asked about your relationship in this case "as an heir" and you continue to avoid the answer. What are you afraid of? If you have "facts" to reveal so that investors can make an educated judgement about the issues, then have the guts to identify your "so-called" authority in this matter. (2) You have accused SUF of using questionable methods... You said: <It is not a question of NGS hiding behind any applicable laws. Would you then condone SUF acquisition of any mineral rights by stealth. I suspect not.> You are a hypocrate, because while you accuse others, you continue to spread falsehoods and disinformation without attribution. (Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word!) Your so-called DME press release is, IMHO, a fairy tale. Your so-called "facts" are also in doubt because you hide behind anonimity and continue to refuse to answer pointed questions that would be easy answers for others. So who acts by stealth, do say again...! (3) While you praise NGS lawyers, you besmirch the lawyers on the other side... (by suggesting the actions by "stealth"...) You said <The attorneys acting on behalf of the heirs are most reputable and experienced, and no doubt have worked in their best interests. Suffice to say that i am extremely confident that they will win the case.> (4) I am so happy that you know the details of BOTH sides of the story. Because only then can one decide in one's own mind about the case... You said <I will of course, post all the relevant news pertaining to this matter, and those whom are interested, can make their own decisions as to which party followed the ' moral high road ' > Of course, you will. Now that's real gallant of you! Who do you think will believe you about "all relevant news"... you promise to put forward? At best it will be selectively biased, without much substance, and again without any ATTRIBUTION, as were your previous posts. You keep asking people for rebuttal of your so-called facts. Yet you refuse to acknowledge and answer the simple questions that people on this thread have been put to you, time and again. For example, who is your source inside DME, since you know all about what the dept is doing/saying/thinking? Or is it simply you in the employ of the govt? Since you have such intimate knowledge of all relevant facts, give the "facts" some meaning by attribution! SUF does, RD does, De Beers does. What are you afraid of? At least when SUF or RD or De B make a statement, they are men enough to stand up and be counted, unlike you and GULL. I rather believe a man who has the integrity to issue statements under his own signature, than a person lurking about with a paper bag over his head....

To: INFOMAN who wrote (1067)	5/8/1998 4:47:00 PM
From: DavidA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

The DME has publicly stated through several journals that SUF has complied and met all appropriate requirements, put on your glasses, and read what has been printed.... For someone who makes reference to issues which are of confidentiality, are you the public spokes person for the DME, in distributing information "News Flash" prior to any form of legal official publication. This appears to be an issue personal conflict and potential misrepresentation.