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: sh who wrote (16638)	10/9/1998 3:57:00 PM
From: Neal davidson	Respond to of 20681

sh: you most certainly are entitled to your opinion. You know, when I was in Asia, I was surrounded by people who could not speak their mind for fear of governmental crack down. The Vice Prime Minister of Malasia was jailed for speaking out against the Prime Minister's economic policy. So let's be happy we all live here and that we can all speak our minds. Even if you are wrong on this one. :-)

To: sh who wrote (16638)	10/9/1998 4:10:00 PM
From: Tom Frederick	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

sh, Monday morning quarterbacking is the easy part. What I was pointing out is if you had one of the premier labs in the world tell you in affect that all your problems were over, why would you spend money on something that was still unreliable at best? I agree wholeheartedly, in retrospect, that it would have been a much smarter thing to keep both going. And I have even posted to that effect before. The point is, I believe that in the situation Sid did what he thought made the most sense and offered the highest opportunity for success...which was SFA results from a world class referee lab. Having said that, as Neal has pointed out in the past, there is that much more weight that falls on the test results of Ledoux because not only did Naxos shareholders make buying and selling decisions based on their data, but Naxos management made strategic business decisions based on those same results. Tom F.

To: sh who wrote (16638)	10/9/1998 4:12:00 PM
From: Ruthie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

To Anyone - Why does Sid Kemp remain in power? What would it take to unseat him? Why hasn't there been any word from management to shareholders regarding Ledoux's responsibility in our latest fiasco? There has to be better management! Who is available that can manage this company and be more responsive to shareholders? What was the real story behind the new offering that was withdrawn? What happended to the Russell report? Are we paying for Johnson/ Lett consulting? What is the status of this technology? Does anyone think this would make a good mystery novel? We all could speculate till the cows come home, but until management steps up and gives us some concrete facts, we are all doomed! I for one feel that there must be some explanations from management NOW. If nothing is forthcoming, there must be some legal remedy available.

To: sh who wrote (16638)	10/9/1998 4:42:00 PM
From: Larry Macklin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Sh, The pilot plant was scraped because johnson could not get any repeatable results. It would be silly to start a pilot plant before you have repeatable results,geology studies and a million other bits of info needed before you attemp to go to pilot plant production. Larry MAcklin

To: sh who wrote (16638)	10/9/1998 4:46:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Respond to of 20681

SH with all due respect, how can you talk about the pilot plant in a serious tone and not laugh?????? Here it is more than half a year later, and J/L cant even get repeatable results, let alone start up a pilot plant! Scrapping the plant was obvioulsy the best decision, since it has been proven that J/L at that point wasnt even remotely close to having their process at a point where that was a viable option. Even though they were, at the time, saying they were very close(as they are still). Mark