SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Kurt R. who wrote (13730)6/19/1998 11:54:00 AM
From: Neal davidson  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 20681
 
This thread is deteriorating, and it is not a pleasant sight. Fine, Kurt, you are not whining. We can call it something else if you prefer, but the fact of the matter is that you are saying the same thing over and over and over and over. We all wish Jimmy had done some things differently. He owns lots of shares and had enough incentive to make the stock go up without lowering the strike price of his options. But his actions were not illegal and not all that uncommon. We now have new management, and while JJ is still on the board, he is not running the day-to day-operations, and his presence, from what I can see, has not hurt the company. I doubt that CPM would have agreed to sign on with Naxos if they felt that present or former management was still a problem. A general question was posed to you and the other recent ranters: What has current management done which is unethical? No answers to that question have been given, except the vague assertion that all former purported ethical violations should be recanted by present management. I am quite certain that present management does not approve of unethical behavior. That is why management has changed. Kurt: what is your agenda? Instead of complaining again and again, tell us what you want done in the future (besides management agreeing to your ethics proposals, as fiduciary duties are inherent and do not require your ideas). The past is gone, and it is of no help for you to keep rehashing it, raising inferences of nefarious behavior by current management. Do you have substantive proposals?

And Kurt, please do not accuse me of being engaged in "thread discipline." You know that is not the case, as I have been a vocal critic in the past, and, as you should remember, I am the one who originally said that Mark Silvers has pom-poms. Nonetheless, as I have told you in private messages, I am satisfied with current management and where they are taking us.

Chewy, why don't you stop asking rhetorical questions which are clearly intended to raise sinister inferences. When did you stop beating your wife? Hmmm...tough question isn't it? Because no matter what you answer, the inference is raised that you did, at one time, beat your wife. Your questions are the same...always implying that management has done something wrong, without any proof whatsoever. It is not illegal to have an offshore account. If this stock goes up to $100.00, you will wish you had the stock in an offshore account in order to avoid taxes. I know very reputable Wall Street investors who have stocks held in off-shore accounts. (P.S. Chewy, since you so often fail to understand people's points, let me clarify that I was not intending to assert that you ever beat your wife. I was trying to make a point. I am truly sorry that I feel like I have to explain that to you.)

JLA: You are a bright, articulate man, and I hope you will return to the thread sooner than you have indicated. When you do return, let's hear some fresh ideas, not rehash. If you tried to call Sid Kemp again, I would like to hear about your conversation. Please email me or send me a private message if you will not post on here.



To: Kurt R. who wrote (13730)6/20/1998 9:15:00 AM
From: Jerry in Omaha  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 20681
 
Kurt,

<<Why do you continue call the exchange of information and ideas,
even if they are sometimes controversial, "whining, feet beatin',
bickering" etc.? Do you think we should not discuss ALL aspects of
Naxos, including management's notion of business ethics?
>>

First, because your so called information lacks content and is not
novel, and your ideas amount to no more than accusations.

Second, because no one wishes to discuss the ante-Bre-X past there is
no exchange merely targeted didactic contentiousness coming from you.

Third, you have no intention to discuss but simply to spear the notion
of "ethics" into the heart of Naxos as a carrier for your discontent.
Discussions of business ethics properly are discussed in general terms
with applications to all business. You have made an ethical "target" of
Naxos which you then proceed to attack and at the same time attempt to
recruit the thread as the Ethics Brigade.

And fourth, because they serve no useful purpose except, apparently, the
dubious accomplishment of culling the thread of some good contributors.

The place for stockholders to demand anything begins and ends with the
Board of Directors. These persons are the only persons in a corporation
directly responsible to shareholders. Management is responsible to the
Board of Directors not to shareholders except in the discharge of their
duties as established and supervised by the Board. It is a shareholder's
duty to report any suspected breaches of ethics only to the Board, not
harass this electronic assemblage of declared non-interested parties.

You have attempted to create an agenda out of ethics on this board and
failed because you directly targeted Naxos not all business, even though
I'm sure you believe otherwise. Had you sincerely wanted to discuss
ethics you should have spoken more as Mr. Goldstein has, with terms
that apply to business universally.

Mr. Goldstein stands in sharp contrast to you, Kurt, and I believe that
he is sincere. The fact that you have not opened up a dialog with the
one person on the thread who not only is willing to discuss ethics but
eager to do so betrays your true assaultive intent.

In other of these respects I am in full accordance with Mr. Frederick's
interpretation and analysis; we have no reason to believe that current
management is not behaving with the highest business ethics. Our recent
alignment with industry professionals certainly attests to that fact.

'Nuff bloody said!

Jerard P