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 (11256)	7/26/1998 9:01:00 PM
From: Ironyman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Chief,,,, I could have bought QGLY the other day for 6 7/8......now it is 9 ! I waited on that one day too long.

To: the Chief who wrote (11256)	7/27/1998 8:54:00 AM
From: Patrick Lauder	Respond to of 34075

<<Precede all statements with "the Chief thinks" 1st thing. no drilling to determine continuity to depth 2nd thing "Grab samples were too small" 3rd thing. Grab samples were previously assayed at 1-2 g/t. Then a statement is made in Guido's report that says that the "part of the grab samples previously discarded" hold the "micro flakes". A Grab sample is to be "shipped intact" without "discarding" or "adding" any material!! 4th thing. Not all previous assays would have disgarded the "micro flakes" which when subjected to fire assay and/or cyanide would have returned big numbers, numbers we did not see before. 5th thing. I have "never" known a geologist to "grab" where there is no chance of gold never. No geologist ever grabs dirt, and sends it to an assayer, only to have the assayer say, "you sent us dirt"(assaying costs $$$). So "grab" by its very nature is "suspect".>> Thank you for your reply. I keep going back to my same point. Why is it that you think all the geologists (Trites, Guido, Newmont expert, Barrick expert, fin gold expert) with all the data available to them and their years of experience missed these points you make? It can't be because they own shares, and I tend to eliminate the SCAM idea. Is it because these geologists really don't know what they are doing? It would have to be that, as you were able to come up with holes (excuse the pun) in their exploration without even being a geologist and having no detailed data to examine. It would be like me, with little Math/Physics experience saying some new physics law was wrong without even the detailed report to be able to read! Pat (please respond)