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: Carlo who wrote (14087)	7/8/1998 3:36:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Carlo Again, that is all supposition based upon what might have happened and what Carl might know. Compare what his letter actually states versus the repudiations that have been posted. No contest in my opinion. mark As far as the $/share, that is DIRECTLY attributable to the false hopes and unrealizable expectations that were pinned on J/L. Go back and look at the time of the J/L downfall and a tick chart on the stock. It is nothing but a downtrade since people began to realize that J/L was not reliable in that form and the multiple ounce malarky that they had been crowing about was not a reality. FWIW, Carl Campbell himself told me in a telephone conversation two days ago that he was also not a believer in the multiple opt theory. Mark

To: Carlo who wrote (14087)	7/8/1998 4:12:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Respond to of 20681

Carlo you are correct to say not to be to quick to judge Carl's letter. But we should also not be so quick to accept it on face value. As several people have pointed out there are direct contradictions between Carl's letter and what he has said directly in conversations. I would like to ask him what he thinks of CPM. I wonder how he thinks CPM will respond if conventional assaying is dropped in favor of returning to the J/L process as our sole methodology? Being a cynic, I am also very interested in what Carl's motivation for this move might be. I have heard that Austin Lett was in a lengthy discussion in an AOL chat room with several Naxos investors last night. Someone asked if Carl had a financial interest in the Johnson Lett partnership. At that point Austin decided it was bed time. Why didn't he answer the question?

To: Carlo who wrote (14087)	7/8/1998 4:53:00 PM
From: ShoppinTheNet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Carlo good point I could not have said it better! Both parties should be heard. Lets allow them to present their point of view and then make our decision.

To: Carlo who wrote (14087)	7/8/1998 6:24:00 PM
From: Herman	Respond to of 20681

Carlo, this looks to be Competition and Democracy at its finest. I firmly agree with you that we should not dismiss or prejudge the Carl Campbell letter. Reports are due from BOTH camps prior to the AGM. I'm holding my proxy until more information is released. It appears that we have a we have a horse race going here. Both parties obviously agree that Naxos has a tremendous, undeveloped assets, that contains huge amounts of precious metals and are going about it two different ways. Both going for the same goal-PROVING THE RESOURCE. I hope they both are successful. Yes, I do agree with Kim's post that says the J/L process has evolved since the agreement was first reached. That's a good thing. I hope Dr. Johnson continues to research and continues to streamline the assay/recovery method. The Ledoux standard fire assay method has evolved quit a bit. That is what men of science do. Herman