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 : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Douglas Lapp who wrote (14764)	11/14/1998 10:27:00 AM
From: Cytotekk	Respond to of 34075

Thanks Doug, a counter lawsuit is a good idea. Charging TT for someone's report and saying it was pump or hype is absurd. Who in the Company made any money? I agree, but did anyone make a huge profit during the last run up that can be tied to TT or the company officers? The SEC may be going an indirect route to make their claims against TT and GE stick. And maybe the SEC is going to claim that GE released misinformation in an effort to hype, regardless of whether they were able to benefit. The halt and the pinks have kept restricted shareholders from benefiting. As far as release of an Independent Report is concerned...it is the responsibility of management to carefully evaluate it's contractors work and findings. Such a large proven claim should have been scrutinized by other experts with regard to the methods and calculations used my Mr. Paravicini before releasing Paravicini's results to the public. GE is a US corporation, GE should have been sure that their contractor's methods conformed to US mining standards before releasing his findings. But, even after considering GE's corporate responsibility to the investing public I agree that without the company or it's employees benefiting directly from the proven release, the SEC claims seem very weak indeed. Colleen

To: Douglas Lapp who wrote (14764)	11/14/1998 11:34:00 AM
From: Jon Matz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

The 8K states: In fact, the Company believes that the information developed by BD&C supports the tenor of the May 22, 1998 press release. Websters defines tenor as 1. general tendency and 2. general meaning; drift IMHO, and apparently the SEC's and many mining experts, the most important tenor of the report included mineralization to depth. Therefore at minimum, BD must have found nothing to disprove Guido's findings. And that, IMHO was the most critical aspect of the audit. Of course I could be wrong! What do the rest of you believe? Curious, Jon