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: Neal davidson who wrote (15306)	8/7/1998 8:19:00 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 20681

ND: Response to the numbered items in your post. Bottom Line: 1. We don't know if Sid is responsible for Ledoux's capitulation BECAUSE the Company is not giving us the relevant information we need to make that determination. Seems to me if they were not responsible somehow we'd know. As usual, all we are able to do is speculate. When the stock has gone from $6.00 to $.75 I presume guilt instead of innocence. If someone can show me otherwise, I am willing to admit a mistake. But, given the lack of MATERIAL and relevant information the company has yet to provide, I am not in any danger of having to apologize. 2. See # 1. 3. Suits by individuals against Ledoux are problematic IMO because of the lack of privity between Ledoux and individual shareholders. Possibly we can argue third party beneficiary claims but which law of which forum applies? 4. You may be right as to the CEO issue. We will NEVER know. No one tried. Unfortunately, this is too common a situation with this company and the management of the company, old & new. As for verification, the verification I was speaking about was for the market and to dispel the "scam" image the company continues to suffer from. IMO, the Ledoux results would have been enough for a bold, independent CEO type. JLA