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: ShoppinTheNet who wrote (14102)	7/9/1998 7:05:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Respond to of 20681

Now that I agreed to ask the hard questions of camp two! Lets explore some camp one questions. Stating you will ask questions is not the same as asking them. I will only answer the questions that directly relate to what I have said. I have a problem with all rumours from both sides. Regarding the institutions that supposedly support CPM and their management who don't want their names released. Isn't this the information worse than useless and must it not be totally discounted? Or considered hype? Was it ethical for CPM to discuss the Naxos story with stockholders in the middle of doing their DD on Naxos? Would it be ethical to accept payment from both Naxos and these investors? This is really a pathetically ignorant question. CPM is in the business of providing market analysis and investment banking. They have been hired by the firm to provide investment banking services. They seperately provide analysis to people who pay for their services. This is their business and is well understood. They have been completely above board about this. This is no different than how any other investment firm operates. Also as far as the information about what firms want to see, the statement that firms don't want to see 'black box' technology was CPM's informd opinion. That is what the company pays them for. Are Matt Walters and Austin Lett's ethics not irrelevant to this discussion now that they have left the picture and don't hold any position in the company? Did I mislead you into thinking I advocated bringing them back? Yes this absoutely irrelevant. It speaks loudly to the ethics and business practices of the partnership. And they have not left the picture or haven't you noticed how many people want us to throw our fate back into a primary focus on Mr Lett's partnership. And yes you have given the impression that you advocated bringing Lett and friends back in.