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 : Maxam Gold Corp. OBB:MXAM -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wildcat who wrote (5087)	7/28/1998 11:14:00 AM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11603

Wildcat, Paunch asked me to post this message for him. : I don't know as yet what name Coggons is posting under but i have it on several very reliable sources that he is posting, and it makes me wonder why they are still going after IPM when the price is .01 cent and not trading . I understand Lee Furlong made him angry , that is why he switched from going after GPGI to going after IPM. I don't believe his job to be protector of the public so he has to have another reason to be trying to put all of the mines out of business,and some day we will find out just what that is. Paunch. This is from me : I don't personally care who is posting what any longer. We must focus on the real work and hopefully get along well enough politically in order to ensure a viable project is put into operation at the earliest possible date. I feel that Mr. Runyon is the most likely candidate at this time to ensure that occurs. He has demonstrated a willingness to work with the people and government officials in order to make this happen as is witnessed by the changes in the Gila Bend zoning laws in order to purchase and use the wharehouse facility there. I say let's try to keep Maxam out of the controversy and then Mr. Coggins should be an issue.