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: Larry Macklin who wrote (14776)	7/25/1998 7:57:00 PM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20681

Larry: I wasn't at the meeting and can't comment on those events. I have only one thing to say about Fred and Sid. NEITHER is the man to run this company so that it has any credibility. JLA

To: Larry Macklin who wrote (14776)	7/25/1998 9:41:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Cheap shot with a capital "C" Larry. I'm a lawyer and I had to read the thing several times. Can easily see how people blew it. As you probably know, it happens all the time. I'm no cheerleader for Fred or what he tried to do. I wasn't there but implying he's dumb is way over the line. If you've met him or talked to him for five minutes, you know that is not true. JLA

To: Larry Macklin who wrote (14776)	7/25/1998 9:51:00 PM
From: sh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

Larry, I wasn't going to comment any further on this thread about what has been transpiring with Naxos. I figure those of you who voted for Sid Kemp got exactly what you deserve and was willing to let it go at that. Then you come out and start making further disparaging remarks, just looking for further erosion of the relationship between the stockholders of this company. I don't know the details of the problems with the proxy voting at the meeting. Without further information, I'm not thrilled about the disorganization of the opposition to Kemp. But then again, I don't know what Sid and company pulled off. I, like Jerard, felt it would not be a good idea to have another go at it. However, it is entirely within the rights of those who are displeased with how the meeting went to do so. Given the state of Naxos at this point, I cann't see much harm from another shareholder meeting challenging the reign of Kemp and those holding his strings. As I understand it, Kemp's legal beagles affirmed unequivocally the right of those holding at least 5 percent of the company's shares to call another shareholder meeting. I trust you won't like that, but tough luck. Regarding Ledoux, if it turns out that they did not back off their claims as the press release states (I think it is very important for us to know exactly what Ledoux told Kemp), Kemp and company should be held accountable for the atrocious release. As I said before, it was foreseeable what the consequences of that release would be and have no doubt the little guys out there were hurt the most. I'm sure there are securities attorneys out there who would have no problem taking this one on a contingency basis. From what I understand, it was Kemp who had the smug attitude during the meeting, sitting back and basically shrugging off any questions asked of him. Some CEO. Given his lack of investment in this company, I guess he really doesn't care that the stock is trading at a dollar. He probably benefits from this. I suspect we'll see his share holding increase greatly. But, then again, he doesn't seem to hold on to shares for too long. I'm pretty sure we will see the stock go up at some point and Kemp's trading should be monitored closely (that is, if he sees fit to file the necessary trading reports) to see if his MO (selling) continues. Finally, to those who kept wanting a greater analysis of Arkoosh in comparison to the ideal candidate, the response is quite simple. It wasn't Arkoosh versus Buffington, it was Arkoosh versus Kemp. Accordingly, the proper focus was Arkoosh's qualifications versus Kemp's. If there was anyone else running for the top spot (supposedly interim, but seemingly endless), I would have gladly considered him/her. sh PS: I'm sure your comments about the Priest are at least misleading. What he probably said was if Kemp insisted on refusing to count all of his and others' votes despite their presence there, while counting the votes of those who were not there, that was grossly unfair and it would be fairer to count only the votes of those who were there. While probably not in the realm of legal protocols, he is a Priest, not a lawyer.

To: Larry Macklin who wrote (14776)	7/26/1998 12:02:00 AM
From: Ruthie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Larry: I am not a big supporter of Fred Arkoosh or of Sid Kemp. I don't know either of them. I have been a stockholder for three and one-half years and am trying to make some sense of all the bickering. The in-fighting in the company will be the ruin of it. The early leaks regarding the last press release in which a large number of shares were traded prior to the press release really made me wonder about the leadership of this company. With the present management my question was "How can Fred and Sid work together?" You can't deny that it is a strange board that we have and my question regarding Fred was why wasn't he considered for the board. From your reply, I assume that there was and is antagonism between Fred and Sid and that he wasn't asked. So again, I ask "How can the two work together?" For the good of the company, if they can't work together, I think one or the other should leave. Although I have been reading the comments on this thread, I have seldom voiced comments, believing that listening is much better than talking. Thank you, Larry, Mark and Jerard for your thoughts on the direction of Naxos. Your views have helped me get more of a complete picture of management and it isn't pretty.

To: Larry Macklin who wrote (14776)	7/26/1998 1:18:00 PM
From: Lawrence Brierley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

Larry, I was only able to attend the morning session of the AGM, but certainly saw enough to understand why this company is in the trouble it is. Your suggestion to Fred that he accept the reality that he was outvoted hugely was excellent. (18 million to 6 million left no doubt as to the question of who was in charge even if all those, such as myself, who failed to understand the proxy information had been able to vote all of our shares) his unwillingness or inability to swallow his pride and do what is best for the company speaks volumes about his ability to lead this company in spite of his eloquence, business acumen and financial connections. On the other hand, Sid Kemp's handling of the meeting and the quite justifiable shareholder anger left me very unsettled. He made no attempt to show any understanding for those who found themselves unable to vote their shares or effect the changes in the company they had sought. He was by turns truculent and dictatorial. I understand that the proxies gave him every right to be, but a small show of humanity might have gone a long way towards finding some common ground. I have previously stated my preference for management with a financial stake in this company, but I harbour no personal animosity to this man and if he can do a good job I will support him. My disappointment with the meeting was that no one seemed prepared to make the grand gesture that you requested of Fred. Each seems content to pursue their own personal agenda and "damn the rest of you". Surely it is obvious that this will lead only to Pyrrhic victories for the individuals involved, and Naxos will only be weakened in the process. Until we can get back to facing our challenges with unity, this company will go nowhere. I would like to make a plea to management and shareholders alike to simply accept that there are people in this company whom you may not see eye to eye with, but who have power to harm the company either through policy decisions or market activity. All of us need to feel that we are considered when decisions are reached and it is the duty of management to dispel any sense of disenfranchisement among individuals or groups. To the disaffected shareholders I would like to ask that you simply face the facts. Current management has achieved power legally and democratically. Any attempt to reverse this result is going to be costly, both financially and in morale for the company, and is in all likelihood doomed to failure. Many, like myself, who might have looked objectively at the merits of a change in current management prior to the meeting will not support a costly and disruptive effort to alter the power structure at this point. To management I can tell you that if you place the value of the company ahead of personal issues and make every effort to keep us informed you will have my complete support. Lawrence