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 (12770)	5/12/1998 9:03:00 AM
From: SER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark, Yes we can use them to speculate but IMO the figures that are really going to matter are from the new 68 COC holes. I think these 68 holes will have a positive impact on investors who have been watching Naxos from fence. I just think that the old numbers even though they were COC are two "dirty" with fingerprints from old management. New management, new COC procedures and more labs will tell the true story about FL. SER

To: mark silvers who wrote (12770)	5/12/1998 9:05:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark, My gut reaction is that the market has not and will not give much credence to those numbers. That is not because they are invalid, I find them intriguing because they point to a higher degree of comfort that the drill program the company is now embarking on will show good results. The reason I believe the market will not put a lot of emphasis on them, despite being COC, is that they come with a question attached. If the company had these numbers why did they pursue other technologies? Why have they waited so long to follow up that path? We can argue about what the answer to those questions may be. I personally believe it was a bad decision my the then management team who decided to pursue new technologies instead of establishing a conventional deposit first. So the report, while intriguing, will fall into the category of ancient history with questions attached. The solution is to repeat the work now with everyone focused on a conventional deposit. Henry

To: mark silvers who wrote (12770)	5/12/1998 9:09:00 AM
From: Richard Mazzarella	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark, IMO the company only needs to COC occasionally to show that their internal numbers are valid. In essence a quality control function. Not every product is tested 100%, statistical COC sampling is all that's required. The current problem with the numbers as I see them is an issue of consistency. That should be solvable IMO.

To: mark silvers who wrote (12770)	5/12/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: ShoppinTheNet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

"Will the market eventually use those numbers as COC certified numbers? If not, will they use them as a potential indicator for future results? Why or why not?" Mark buy the time the market puts value on those numbers, we will not need them or care, as the market will already believe in the Naxos story. Will they use them now? One could say they are using them right now and that is how they came up with the $3 stock value. Or they may not be using them, as they feel it was a different process and thus not meaningfull.