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 : International Precious Metals (IPMCF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert who wrote (33562)	8/3/1998 7:39:00 PM
From: go4it	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Your point is well taken and we had hoped to have something written up on different scenarios. I have had trouble getting in touch with Rob today. One thing is for certain though and that is nothing is going to happen if we don't get the 10% required to call the meeting.

To: Robert who wrote (33562)	8/3/1998 9:07:00 PM
From: d:oug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35569

Robert, I know that someone did reply to this on the other thread, and I have not yet read it, but I agree with you that until more information is obtained we should only pledge our share vote for the purpose to force a meeting with IPM that will hopefully expose stuff that IPM does not want us to know. Then as you logically point out the shareholders can be asked to pledge share votes to accomplish specific acts or procedures or plans or whatever....just so we know whats its for. I'am not taking sides here, only that I know that Charles, Robert, Paunch and John are spending a lot of their free time and sweat doing something that may not end up with any value except that they tried, not without a fight, etc. From their view, they only see themselves putting in time and effort, while we other shareholders are simply waiting and hoping for them to be successful so that we also can fully receive the fruits of their work. So, lets point out our lack of being informed, but we also hopefully trust them enough to make good decisions, and this share pledge is more of a "they ain't getting any of our help as we just wait for them to do all the work, so they see us as passive". I conclusion is that yes I want to know what the share pledge is for, for I trust them, and I know that they a taking it one step at a time and they don't know what will come out of the next step, except that whatever it is, they will work on getting back ipmcf shareholder value for us all. So, I pledge all my shares to them with me knowing that it is NOT a "blank check" for them to be used after the next step of forcing IPM to meet with the shareholders representives, which happen to be these four people. If you want to be represented by yourself, it may be too far in the process to jump in now. Noone prevented anyone from joining their group a week or two ago. Trust them now, and if not, then those that do trust them do not want them to be slowed down if the slowness will mean that they cannot accomplish the task under way. I asked months ago for a shareholders "uprisen", and if I remember correctly about 2-3 weeks ago Robert was the first to put himself into the thick of things that required actually spending time and energy. Charles was ofcourse there all the time with one foot in the ring, waiting for another to join him so he didn't have to work alone. Doug