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 (17116)	12/9/1998 10:06:00 AM
From: BGM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

To all: I am a little unclear as to the reasons for the current sentiment and conclusions with regard to JL. Maybe a little discussion is in order at this time. 1. Does everyone think that Dr. Johnson is (1)crooked, (2)incompetent, or (3)that he just has not found the answer yet? 2. Does everyone think that Dr. Johnson is not a qualified person to have continue testing on our soils? 3. If we paid JL $20,000 per month to test and this covered a variety of time and lab expenses, is this unreasonable? We certainly paid salaries to people that amounted to much more than this for very little results. 4. Why does the fact that they are working for someone else mean that they are not working with Naxos or shouldn't be? Who here has a business with one customer. 5. Why do you think you pay someone only for results in a research situation? I am sure the aspect of stock options or a larger ownership should be held for later. 6. How much have we paid JL that we consider this such a "fiasco" compared to say --- South America? 7. Who has all of this information that they are so certain about, and where is it coming from? We have heard nothing from the company and no factual basis for any of these conclusions. 8. Does Ledoux still stand behind earlier assays? I am not saying what the truth is here. But how can posters be expressing these things so strongly without facts? Once again it seems sources are manipulating opinions before any facts are presented. Once again shareholders are not being told events. If this information is coming from the company, then I would expect them to either keep quiet or issue a press release with facts. Brad Mertz