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: mark silvers who wrote (14544)	7/21/1998 9:48:00 AM
From: Paul Salber	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

I received mail yesterday from Sid's office stating that Ledoux's explaination should be received "in the first part of this week". Paul

To: mark silvers who wrote (14544)	7/21/1998 9:49:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Mark, Ledoux is obviously in a very tight spot. They do tests which include blanks and after finishing 10 holes, and all the blanks coming out correct, make a very logical and reasonable scientific assumption that their testing is accurate. It is not possible to have random contamination. Then, two well known check labs apparently come up with results nothing like Ledoux. Suddenly, for no reason I can see clearly, Ledoux is the one in the hot seat to prove the results. So being populated by scientists and not "pit bull" business people, Ledoux agrees to go back and retest to prove they did the tests correctly. Now, I don't read that as retreating or even a deterioration of the relationship, I read it as a head scratcher on the part of Naxos. Why, after running well controlled tests with lots of checks and balances to prove accuracy, would Ledoux be the one to take a step back and agree to retest? Why wouldn't they stand firm? Well, my opinion is that , like I said, Ledoux is populated by a bunch of scientists. And as scientists, when a group of OTHER scientists say they are wrong, the SCIENTIFIC thing to do is to go back and retest to prove your point. Having said that, this is a terrible way to handle information on which the success of Naxos hangs in the balance. But Ledoux is not a PR arm or a business consultant of Naxos. They are a lab and are only paid to test material. How the information is handled is up to Naxos and so far Naxos has been much more forward than most junior exploration companies with test results. Another company that could very likely end up being a scam, released all at one time 3,000 assay results from over 700 points on the property. This was their first major release of information and even then they didn't release the detail, just the synopsis. It doesn't matter who the company is in this case. This is just to make a point. If anyone can explain how Ledoux can test with blanks and have the blanks come out dead on and the other numbers be good and still be doing something REALLY WRONG with the testing, I am all ears. Otherwise, I believe we are now experiencing a very public exposure of a serious scientific challenge, which would in most cases be worked out and only the final resolution would be publicized. Should we know about every problem? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. In this case, it certainly hasn't helped us much has it? Tom F.

To: mark silvers who wrote (14544)	7/21/1998 4:50:00 PM
From: NXRTemp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

TO ALL: I wish to thank all of you -- as a long term lurker this thread has provided some interesting and often enjoyable reading . I hope this brief statement helps in the upcoming AGM meeting. To save some time, and a lot of background detail, I have summarized the reasons below that I believe we should reconstruct the board and management at the coming AGM. Yes, this is my agenda, but it is a successful one. If the to-be-redone assays show no values in the ground, then the game is over. Let's assume therefore that we have some potentially economic values. Executive Summary: It's time to accept a fact: this company needs management! The entire existing board should resign or be replaced. Sid should stay on temporarily (perhaps 3 months)to ease the turnover. The new management can determine whether Sid's firm will remain as our corporate counsel, that is an operational decision. Fred A should be given the company reigns as its new president and Chairman. Fred has proven management skills, is well liked by the investment community, has purchased (ie not been "given") a large stake in the company, and understands how to run a business. He has integrity,an attribute Naxos sorely needs in the marketplace now, and reportedly works well with our vendors while getting things done. [Yes, I know Fred, we met via our contacts re this investment, I am not a shill for him, I am a significant long term NXR stockholder, and I know a lot about this company's history.] The new board should include and be supported by Sid (on a "turnover" basis), a single representative from the "big stockholders group" (perhaps Father Gregory or Dr.Paul D.), and one of our mining engineers. We don't need every large shareholder on the board -- if they are confident they will receive timely accurate information on the company, plus good judgement from management. These people are just scared that their investment is not being handled properly by the current management, and that both strategic planning and operational procedures are weak or absent. The new board can submit up to 4 additional recommendations for the board within 4 months, such recommendations subject to approval by the stockholders. This group is likely to include a representative from our investment firm or JV partner, should we go that way. No options should be given that are not based on performance of the company, no separation bonuses / options to anyone. However, quality performance should be rewarded. **************** A lot of history could be discussed here. Unfortunately, in the past, underlying facts were often communicated, but because of style were not understood or taken seriously. For example, B.Maghan's posts often contained valid substantive information, but were too cryptic to be of value. An offshore trust is often used to protect assets, including from legal procedures. Unless you know the type of trust, the trustee, the beneficiary, etc, you know nothing. Do not visit the sins of the father on the son -- Greg J. is an intelligent young man who could be a valuable employee to the company; let him grow into a role that suits his abilities. The board has always been "yes" men to JJ. Anyone who confronted that concept was "not supported" in the next election. Sid is an attorney, was JJ's personal attorney for a long time (may still be), and Sid therefore had a "primary obligation to him". Sid does not have experience running a public or major enterprise, and perhaps would welcome the chance to "get out" of this situation and return to his chosen field. Much more could be reviewed, but it serves no purpose right now. ************* Thank you for your past contributions, one and all. I hope this thing works out for all of us. Friday's AGM WILL PROVE SIGNIFICANT to the future of the company -- use your vote wisely. B.Kauffman *************