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: jbIII who wrote (14870)	7/27/1998 10:11:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

JB3: Logical analysis. Its that damn silence from Teaneck that doesn't make sense. JLA

To: jbIII who wrote (14870)	7/27/1998 11:24:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Respond to of 20681

JB3 <<. I really find it hard to believe that with all the samples and data we have seen from LeDoux that there is a problem at their end. I expect and certainly hope that they determine that there was a procedural or processing problem at RMG and Knight. >> I find what larry said earlier to be interesting. He mentioned that John Norton said that LeDoux was not profecient at setting up assay protocal. that Brian Russel was. Could it be possible that improper protocal was the reason that Knight and RMG could not get the same numbers?(Knight did get some numbers on an earlier test) I find it hard to believe that LeDoux has been making that large of an error all along that they are statistically insignificant numbers over a period of over a year. I find it hard to believe that quality labs such as Knight and RMG could be maiing a mistake also. I find it much easier to believe that their is an error of communication between the labs, or a breakdown in the process somehow. Each of the particiapants reputations(knight, Ledoux, RMG) have reputations so big that it makes the concept of foul play or error on COC ore too hard to believe. I am not experienced enough to know if John Nortons comments can be interpreted in the manner that I am interpreting them. I would welcome any comments, from anyone who would be in a position to know. mark