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: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (14743)	7/25/1998 2:06:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Henry: As to the circus of factions, that was the point of my post about Goth. I don't know anyone who'd willingly walk into this hornets nest with eyes open unless you are the type who likes to get stung. As for his wife's condition, I certainly hope that's not the case and wish him the best of luck if its true. As to Ledoux, my position is hardly "farfetched". Frankly, I'm just sick to death of hearing "it can't be done", especially when no one tries in the first place. The essence of management IMO is NEVER to be satisfied with things as they are AND to find a way to MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. Hence my own personal credo : "Lead, Follow or Get The Hell Out of My Way." Now a couple of simple questions. 1. Did anyone get on a plane, go to Ledoux's office and demand a result? As Sid well knows from personal experience, its easy to ignore telephone calls, faxes, letters and e-mails. He's a master. Its hard to ignore someone who is standing right in front of you, especially when the company has paid Ledoux in excess of seven figures over the past few years. Finding a way to make things happen for the company IS management. 2. How long does it take to do an SFA? Was it physically impossible to have the verification done by the meeting? If its not physically impossible, why wasn't it done? Who does Ledoux represent? Who pays the bill? Do we get our (shareholder) money back now that the results appear to be defective? Plain fact is we have no "management". That's a continuing problem for this company and it will be as long as Kemp sits as CEO. BTW the fact that he owns no shares, (along with Ian Gordon too)I might add is a HUGE problem. You may have noticed a trend on Wall Street where executive compensation is increasingly being tied to company performance and hence stock price. There's a reason. It works. JLA

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (14743)	7/25/1998 2:13:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20681

PS. I'm baaaaaaaaaack! And its good to be back. I've missed the debate. JLA

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (14743)	7/25/1998 3:56:00 PM
From: Lionel Hungar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

". . . the assay discrepancy with Naxos' Franklin Lake material should come as no surprise. This is the second time independent re-assays have come up with a goose egg. Now the question becomes was Ledoux leading Naxos down the primrose path or was Naxos leading Ledoux? Maybe everyone was so enamored of the assay process they couldn't see the forest for the trees. And why continue testing the mysterious Johnson-Lett process if there isn't any gold there? And how long before the CPM Group abandons the chase here?" mining.com