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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ben & Ally Maddox who wrote (33293)	7/9/1998 8:44:00 AM
From: Paunch	Respond to of 35569

Ben & Ally I think MM was right when he said not to waist your time , only he should have added with him. You can see from all of his post that he is not worth answering, I haven't seen anything yet that he has posted that is worth reading. Paunch

To: Ben & Ally Maddox who wrote (33293)	7/9/1998 10:52:00 AM
From: Tim Hall	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Ben & Ally, About a year ago I suggested that shareholders ask to see contracts and reports with BD. IPM's corporate officers passed a measure at a shareholder meeting which would not require the officers to show these documents to shareholders. I would think, that your group might be better off to go after the company and former officers to get these released. After you see what is in these, I think your lawsuit will take a new direction. ie. There never were any credible assays for BD to sign off. BD sold their name to IPM and went along for the ride. When BD could see that the money was running out, they jumped ship. Tim Hall