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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim Hall who wrote (6276)	6/20/1998 1:05:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

thall, don't you think it is CL (the IPM hypster, I mean) that needs to prove to you he is nothing but an idiot ? I would still like to know a little more details on Twifford's alleged infractions. Are you sure it is the same Twifford and what was the nature of those alleged infraction? Zeev

To: Tim Hall who wrote (6276)	6/20/1998 2:37:00 PM
From: Alan Vennix	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

<< One of the best consultants, in my opinion is right in AZ. They are Mountain States. >> Tim, if I'm not mistaken, Mountain States was who IPM had been using for the past several months and the technical expert from MS went with them to the NASDAQ meeting to explain the mineralogy and his work - evidently it wasn't enough for the NASDAQ, although they were looking more at IPM's past "sins" than current results. I understood that the MS man had become a believer in recent months and is/was preparing to publish something on the BR mineralogy. Maybe you can confirm this through some of your contacts, particularly any you might have at MS. Alan

To: Tim Hall who wrote (6276)	6/20/1998 7:13:00 PM
From: Bob Walsh	Respond to of 14226

Tim, all: I think that your posting regarding Twiford is uncalled for. First: you have provided no information to prove that the Twiford that the SEC letter discussed is the same Twiford that is working as a consultant to GPGI. Second: the securities violation (which was not detailed) happened 20 years ago. Third: the Twiford involved with GPGI is acting as a technical consultant only. Your implication is that perhaps there is a scam involved here. If there is a scam then they are taking forever to set it up and tell me how it would work? Very few people (other than a number of us who invested a long time ago) presently believe that there is value and are awaiting proof via a series of payments from refiners. Twiford's involvement is to come up with the optimum procedures to process the ore. Then others will use those procedures. If a series of shipments to refiners results in a series of meaningful payments then we all know there is value. Regards, Bob

To: Tim Hall who wrote (6276)	6/20/1998 8:47:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Thall: I disagree with the previous post and support your posting of the Twifford information here. We don't know for a fact it is the same Twifford, but the name is not the most common one. I'm sure if the Twifford mentioned in your post is a different Russell Twifford as the one mentioned in your post, GPGI can clear up that question. If it is the same person, and given this is public information, I agree it is appropriate to post. So what if the infraction took place 20 years ago? I think it is pertinent information. I would like to know more about this infraction. As Zeev said, it could be something relatively innocuous. If it is, that would be nice to know as well. I also agree with Zeev's comment. You have nothing to prove to CL <VBG>.