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: Confluence who wrote (1139)	5/17/1998 5:34:00 AM
From: GULL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7235

My questioning why the sudden civility extended to me was only in reaction to all the speculation that I was a female lawyer,an analyst,a liar etc... So I question the sudden civility extended to me and still do. Your second answer that it takes two to tango begs the question. The simple answer to that simple question is that I was the subject of attack as I had presented a different viewpoint which is what this thread should be about. Why should my motivations cloud the issue? Surely facts speak for themselves and motivation should not be a mitigating factor in establishing the truth? I think that your understanding of what transpired during the negotiations with the heirs is exactly that i.e. your understanding and not based on factual evidence. INFOMAN provided both dates,times as well as people who attended these negotiations. To date they have not been rebutted. Who are "Nicky's people" and "Nicky"? Are they theme park characters like Nicky Nouse? I think that you will find them in theme parks such as Disneyland and so obviously "Nicky himself is not in RSA" I did not realise that you were on first name terms with people of such stature. If INFOMAN's detailed response is not attributable when he gives detailed dates,Departments,Sections,Acts,Offices,etc..then what is? If this doesn't answer your questions then I suggest that you read it again thoroughly. Do you think that in such a relatively small community and with all the press coverage that if there were other claimants that they wouldn't have come forward by now? Do you intend the word obfuscate to mean to make obscure or to bewilder? I don't see how it applies in the first instance. The records of that time period are accurate. The explanation as to how the R2800 was reached is self explanatory as it was the figure determined as the value of the rights 30 years ago. I do not see why the agreement with DeBeers is regarded as stealth,I am sure that SUF also have confidential agreements. Why not ask SUF wether or not the meeting took place on 8th Jan? I have mentioned many times that like all of us I am motivated by money. Even if the Section 24 is used to appropriate,the market value will have to be paid and I think that it has been established. Regards.