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 : GMD RESOURCE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (799)	10/15/1998 3:55:00 PM
From: Taz	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1030

Marcos: Just thought I'd refer you back to posts #'s 769-775, before Ritchie lost his cool and we got into a little pissing match. We all know that the Doc is somewhat restricted in what he can say here, which is cool, because like I stated earlier, at least he has the knards to be here and answer the technical queries best as he can. What bugs me is "hapless optimists" who get a burr under their saddle when some substantiated facts are presented that could put the company in a bad light. I agree with the Doc when he states "I cannot discuss contracts or agreements between any of the companies and any of the contractors that I am or have been involved with that are not public documents." The problem here is, the liens filed on the Royce group properties ARE public documents, which is precisely how they came to light. It's one thing to announce to your shareholders that "leins have been filed and the company is working to resolve the matter". It another issue entirely if nothing at all is announced, especially when the matter at hand could have a very detrimental effect on the one real asset that the company is currently working on and announcing results of exploration, good results, yes, even exciting results. Anyone in this business knows that the moment a dispute over property rights is evident that the market will drop the public company(ies) like hot potatoes. So everyone usually does their level best to try and resolve issues as quickly and quietly as possible. However, when the dispute drags on and does become public knowledge, then I believe that there is a responsibility of management to inform shareholders of steps being taken to resolve the situation. There may be a technical difference relating to a "material change" of geological nature that could affect price as opposed to a "material change" of an administrative or legal nature. Only the exchange knows for sure, but when the Doc says; "For the record, GMD is operating in full compliance with all rules and regulations.", then one might have to "assume" that the exchange has no concerns over the nature of this matter. So why don't we take the Doc at his words to GC, which were, "If these are your real concerns, please be specific. We'll try to answer whatever we can.", and then help a frustrated GC frame the questions for the Doc. 1. Are there any third party liens on the Royce group properties? Yes or No? Well some of us, who have done our DD, know for certain that there is, but lets hear it anyway from someone directly related to the company. Also, if he feels he can't comment on this, then why not, after all, it is public information. 2. Are these "leins" or "claims" valid and with merit? Yes, No, Maybe? 3. Do the liens constitute a "material change" as defined by the rules and regulations of the VSE as understood by the company management? Yes or No. 4. Regardless of the answer to #2 & 3 above, is the company management taking concrete steps to resolve the situation as soon as possible? Yes or No? 5. Is this matter still in the jurisdiction of the NWT Mining Recorder or has it been referred to the courts? 6. What impact will/could this situation have on any shareholders investment in the company? Negative, Positive, or None? 7. If the answer to any of the above questions is "I can't answer because of my position with the company", then recommend who can answer these questions that is also credible, properly informed, and accountable? Perhaps an exchange listing officer? So.... what do you think gang? Are these valid and reasonable questions that could/should be posed to a representative of the company? Maybe we should pose some of them in the other direction as well, seeing as Mr. Teeds name has been brought forward (heretofore only referred to as the third party). That way maybe we can clear the air here. I would invite the Doc to respond as he can or sees fit, however if others would like to add to these questions or think they should be modified before being posed and answered then post your suggestions. Nuff fer Now. L8er, Regards, TAZ