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: jlallen who wrote (15169)	8/3/1998 5:23:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

John Sure. One thing first. You seemed to think I was talking about a course of actionthat results in the slide from 10-1. In regards to your philosophy, I am only talking about recent history. Mostly I am referring to your insistence on information, wheather it is complete or not. It is that need for information that causes you(IMO) to say that Sid should camp on their doorstep, bang the doors and demand answers, then if the answers aren't forthcoming, sue. It is that type of pressure, trying to rush the process and derive answers before there are any, that causes problems and breakdowns in relationships. IMO, if Sid had done that, there is a good chance that they may have panicked and walked away from the whole thing. AS it stands now, there is achance they come back and support the prior numbers, and that a relationship can be salvaged. Now, just to be fair, I myself was saying that if they step away from their numbers we should sue them. I have since, stepped away from that precipice, because I think it is premature to threaten anyone, until necessary. The bottom line, is that I think, your philosophy of a "balls to the wall", "high pressure" approach is the wrong approach. I think it would only push things in the wrong direction. These are only my thoughts, I certainly could be wrong, and recognize that . It is what I believe, however. Mark