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: sh who wrote (14508)	7/20/1998 4:30:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Can anyone explain such large volume and steady price now that the situation is more tenuous than ever? I could understand huge volume and 10 cent shares, or very low volume and a steady price, but large volume and modest support? The only thing I can assume is that many are willing to buy at these prices and average down. As far as our share price, to me it won't take much to get us back into the $2 or $3 range again. For example, Ledoux stands up for the numbers and either of the check labs agrees to look into what may be the "problem" on THEIR side. Or, if Brian Russel releases a report that there are "encouraging" results from J/L. Either one or both of these would jump us right back to where we were. Of course, that is just my opinion and not based on anything I have been told. Just conjecture as to why we see this high volume buying as well as selling at these prices and the current news. Tom F.

To: sh who wrote (14508)	7/20/1998 5:08:00 PM
From: Neal davidson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

SH: I think you have misread my post. I just re-read it to see if there was any ambiguity. There was none. I never said I blame Fred Arkoosh. In fact, I specifically said I do not blame Fred Arkoosh. Please read my post again. You seem particularly anxious to blame present management for the Ledoux fiasco. I find this interesting, especially in light of your admission that Ledoux's behavior was unforseeable. You wrote, in post number 14468: "WHO COULD HAVE IMAGINED SUCH A THING." You contradict yourself when you blame management for the fiasco, yet state, in capital letters, for all to read, that the fiasco was unimaginable. In the past few months, did you post that Ledoux was unreliable, undependable, or otherwise not worthy of our reliance? If so, then congratulations, you have great foresight (and please direct me to that post). If not, then you are like the rest of us (who relied on Ledoux and their world class stature). Hindsight is always 20/20, and you cannot use hindsight to support a claim. You must look at the information that was available at the time that decisions were made. Should you, or anyone else, present facts to support your conclusions that management has made actionable errors, I will certainly pay attention. Hell, I will work for free on the lawsuit. But conclusions, unsupported by facts, just piss me off, because we are seeing too much of that on this thread, and without facts, it is impossible to assess the value of the conclusions. Neal