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 : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Matz who wrote (9899)	7/15/1998 12:45:00 AM
From: Martin Denis Sarkissian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Chief, Not only do you discredit Guido but also GE's advisors. Dr. Ronald Atwood, former chief metallurgist for Newmont Metallurgical Services. Max Staheli, former controller for South America for Barrick Gold Corp and Dr. Donald Hausen, former chief mineralogist for Newmont Mining. Are all of these people liars, stupid, scam artists, working for the National Enquirer. Please advise.

To: Jon Matz who wrote (9899)	7/15/1998 8:12:00 AM
From: the Chief	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

Hi Jon. Please do not read anymore of my posts you take too much license with the content! Your ability to interpret straightforward information is debateable. Or since you offer the opinion that he probably isn't lying, I must assume that you conclude that he is either delusional or stupid. For sure we can't assume he is ignorant of the technical side as he has spent his lifetime in this very field. I for one believe that T. Turner wouldn't have hired anyone stupid or ignorant or a liar. There is of course the possibility that Guido is delusional either by way of ego or mental illness. I won't address such a "poor analysis" of my position! One thing still haunts me as to the opinion you hold of Guido. Do you hold the thought that perhaps he was able to determine the three distinct numbers he calculated, but only if there is some material evidence not publically known but perhaps included in the full report? That hypothesis has merit. However, why would he choose to do so, when it would likely attract the SEC? (assuming that the SEC has read the report). Why then would they then decide to scrutinize the project ? The scrutiny by the SEC does not appear to support the hypothesis. the Chief