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: the Chief who wrote (11240)	7/26/1998 7:47:00 PM
From: Patrick Lauder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 34075

<<I said:This raised my concern of the "third dimension=depth", a concern I still have. You said:Continue your comments, but you haven't converted me to your thinking yet! I can assure you and all others "conversion" is not my purpose, understanding is.....my understanding!!! Thats all, no secondary motive ! We are big girls and boys here!!>> I appreciate the difference between understanding and conversion, but I would still like you to comment with more substance on my last post concerning the years of geological experience that have come up with such large claims. How do you explain it? How is it you can second guess them with such little data on your side? We have put our money where: lots of history and years of geological experience are telling us there is lots of gold. I have nothing else to go on except this. On the other side I have 4 or 5 mining INVESTORS who have never proven up 1 ounce of gold telling me there is not enough evidence to accept these claims. I am keeping my money in MINE, as the SI geologists themselves, don't have enough data to go on. There I have switched it around. It does not mean 100% you are wrong and Guido et all are right. You might be right and Guido wrong, but Guido et all have alot more to go on than you. So on one side we have 5 geologists with years of experience, and years of exploration of the site and a ton of data available to them to analyse the history of the area. On the other side we have 5 SI mining INVESTORS, with no time spent on the site and very little data, historical or otherwise to analyse. Setting aside any conspiracy by either group, which group would you go with? Pat (in Montreal anticipating your response)