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 (14072)	7/8/1998 9:21:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Kim, Mark, Henry Thank you all for your swift and well organized response to the Al post. There is little I can add to what has already been very well stated. However I will say this. As the letter seems to say, there is panic in the air. And the panic seems to me anyway, to be in the tone and content of the letter from Carl. He is definitely panicking. From the sound of it, Carl seems to feel if Naxos is successful with SFA, then J/L is out the door. And if that happens, why is that bad for Naxos? If Naxos can successfully establish a specific reserve with SFA and get financing or even an offer on the property, why is that bad for the shareholders? The total revenues generated from FL will be found out in recovery and at that point any technology can be applied as long as it works. So J/L would not be out. Only out of a lucrative deal if SFA is the launching pad for a final offer on the property. There is an old Latin phrase used by the intellectuals of the time in discerning truth which translated means "who benefits?". Henry, I believe your comments are on target. Carls' letter screams of a desperate attempt to rest back control, not keep J/L alive which Naxos is clearly already doing as outlined by Kim with current real events and activities. It is one thing to share opinions and concerns here on the SI thread. But I believe the posting of the letter from Carl, while certainly a right of free speech, is highly questionable and clearly indicates a personal agenda and implies a level of authority on a subject which was clearly contradicted quickly by not only well informed and educated stockholders (Mark and Henry) but also an individual intimately involved in all activities of Naxos (Kim). And that leads back to agendas. Mr. Cambell will for many represent a voice of authority. But his facts and opinions as stated in the letter are either not accurate or at the very least confused. Thank goodness we have the interest of people who can clarify these issue which makes this thread one of the few worth following. Thanks again to all three contributors. Tom F.