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 : Mongolia Gold Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Bryan who wrote (2337)	7/1/1998 7:59:00 PM
From: Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4066

D. Bryan, my feelings exactly ! I can't think of a better post that sums my personal thoughts on the MGR situation. Lots of talk but no action. Dave has NOT been able to recify this situation and until he does,I am not a believer. No Cash, no action, no nothing. Regards , Farmer

To: D. Bryan who wrote (2337)	7/1/1998 8:59:00 PM
From: Harmattan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4066

D. Bryan, You make some excellent points and express some of the same things that annoy (ed) me. And not for a second do I think that the MGR management should be taken off the hot seat with regard to how they conduct projects and run a company. There were and are real problems, some that need not have occurred for a variety of reasons and some that were unavoidable. But I have worked on enough rigs and drilling programs to know if I am determined to salt core it would pretty difficult to stop me barring an impossible security cost. Add to that a foreign cultural context and remote proximity and the odds for "potential" exploitation of circumstance are high. Besides, project geo's (no insult intended to any geos reading) often have very little clue what goes on among non-management crew. That is just an occupational fact of life in drill programs the world over. From the way Dave is handling the "salting episode" it seems to me the company may be learning some valuable lessons on the fly. But without belaboring the point, I think you have mis-characterized Dave (only time will prove the point one way or another). Enough said from me on that. As for this being a "hand holding or babysitting thread", sheesh, just read back aways; especially some of the exchanges initiated by David Schaller and Bearcatbob among others. And that stuff implying I suggest SI should be "fluffy, without substance and no pointed questions" etc. isn't worth responding to. Your last paragraph quoted below is interesting. "Just because someone has a PhD in geology doesn't mean they can run a company, it means they may be able to find the rocks they are looking for. Wake up and smell the coffee!! This turkey is on its last legs with not much future. You must have realized that sometime ago or you wouldn't have sold your stock would you??????" I know quite well from mind boggling experience that a Ph.D. in geology does not necessarily understand how to run a company. But by implication you are concluding that therefore one specific PH.D in geology does not know how to run a company. Sorry, the logic is weak. I think the principals involved may just suprise us all. My coffee smelled good this morning and it "tastessssss gggggreat". If you think MGR is a "turkey on its last legs and without a future" then dump them. Dump them and enjoy the capital loss at tax time. Contrary to appearances, I enjoy reading your posts. Some of your pointed questions are my own. Keep posing them to the company. But in the same spirit, allow for the differing opinion. Statement and rebuttal; both together are the beauty and strength of SI. regards, ghunk

To: D. Bryan who wrote (2337)	7/1/1998 10:59:00 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4066

There's nothing in the SI rules that requires you to be such an ignorant obnoxious twit, either. If you think Dave hasn't been criticized constantly for a year now, then you haven't read the thread. Looks like your problem starts here "...reading the front page of of the Financial Post on the weekend ... makes me wonder..." #reply-5050115 so why not talk to the FP instead of grinding on with this crap. Right now there's negotiations happening on the sale of the MAC interest, the mill's shut down, and the stock is a dime. From here we go onward. If your brilliant hindsight brings you any good ideas for the future of mgr, do be sure to let us know.

To: D. Bryan who wrote (2337)	7/1/1998 11:15:00 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4066

D. Bryan, I agree. My biggest complaint is that all Dave's presence has done is to hold people's hands through their loss. In light of the failure of the mill to restart as indicated one can even wonder what value this hand holding has been. I guess if nothing else he has succeeded in keeping interest in what may otherwise be a dead duck. After all, I am responding to post number 2338. Maybe that is the whole justification for his presence. Each person can judge for themselves the value of the responses given. Bob

To: D. Bryan who wrote (2337)	7/1/1998 11:22:00 PM
From: rdww	Respond to of 4066

I like the lack of fluff in your comments - Dave gives out more than enough!

To: D. Bryan who wrote (2337)	7/2/1998 10:35:00 AM
From: Dave R. Webb	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4066

MGR will release a response to TNM/FP articles. I can't say much about the MAC negotiations other than they are selling, several buyers have made proposals, MAC responded, counters are expected. MAC contributed US$4.58 million over the past 3 years. I'll respond to the rest of your questions as asked later. Comments regarding handholding may be true. All companies have shareholders who ask questions. Some companies answer these questions, some don't. I'd like to think that what has happened on this thread hasn't been a love-in, just check out some of the previous postings. Good honest questions (for the most part), some tough to answer. As for the "salting", check out the release to come out. One thing for certain is that the sampling project got all of the attention it needed. Perhaps someone tampered with the samples, but MGR's testing identified it and it was announced. Unfortunately the positive results had been announced previously, but that was (and is) the law. For the record, the company checked the samples for evidence of salting, and none was discovered. After 3 months of investigation, Hawthorn came to the same conclusion, no evidence of salting. I had stated this last year, but the Company had announced a geochemical anomaly. It never stated it had any deposit or reserves identified in this area. Over 95% of all geochemical anomalys have no orebodies associated with them, so the announcement of a geochemical anomaly should have been viewed as "the company has identified an area where it should look to see if there is some gold." The company looked, and found little of interest. The reasons for looking may have been wrong (tampered samples), but the standards applied at the time are the same as those currently being recommended by the TSE and OSC in their interim report on Mining Standards, and the November 1997 standards in Policy 19E of the VSE. The VSE standards are a bit more stringent. Dave