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: BGM who wrote (17117)	12/9/1998 10:27:00 AM
From: mark silvers	Respond to of 20681

Brad, As for my posts, they are my opinion, and only my opinion. 1. I think Dr. Johnson is nowhere remotely near an answer. I hve never seen anyone in research be able to make such drastic turns in a process on a dime. As soon as he craps out on one process, he has another, "different" process that is always billed as being better, and "basically done". How many times have we heard that they have it down, only to find out that they cant repeat squat? 2. Yes 3.sometimes when it becomes apparent that it is leading nowhere, pulling the plug is an apropriate option 4.I hope they only work for someone else. I have no faith in their process. 5. I certainly wouldnt give anyone options for something that isnt even remotely proven. 6. why are we judging J/L by S.A., shouldnt the bar be much higher? 7. as I said, it is my opinion. 8.Who knows? even so, none of those results have been able to be repeated or duplicated at another lab. At best theyare indications of what "may" be there. I dont understand anyone's allegiance to J/L. They have proven NOTHING. they have had ample time and resources. HOw many times have they said, they have it? How many times were they wrong at best, lying at worst? I wish them the best, somewhere else..... Mark

To: BGM who wrote (17117)	12/9/1998 1:40:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Brad, 1. I would lean more towards saying he is a flake but sticking with the choices you provided I'll pick incompetent. He appears to change his process more often than Clinton changes stories. 2. yes 3. probably yes 4. J/L's other business contracts should have no impact on wether we should continue doing business with them. Their failure to come up with a process and their questionable business practices are more than enough reason to toss them. 5. I would have no problem paying for pure research. I do however have a major problem in paying anything to J/L. This is not so much a question about Dr Johnson but about his business associates. I do not trust any of them and personally believe that we should not do business with them. 6. The two issues are not related. Assuming that South America is a complete write off (which I have no opinion on) that would have no bearing on assessing our dealings with J/L. J/L should be taken as a separate case. 7. I am basing all my opinions on the same public information as you. 8. I have no idea. Brad please do not take this personally but I think your last statement is completely off base. I believe you are very well intentioned but I feel strongly you are wrong. Public opinion has definitely been manipulated but not by the 'anti-J/L' camp. We have been fed a not stop diet of bullshit by individuals associated with the J/L group. How many times have we heard rumours of astounding numbers from their process? How many times have we heard that they have a new process that will address previous problems? How many times have they failed to produce anything concrete? What do we get? Completely obnoxious comments about how we should hand off a major chunk of the company to them before we even see their process and evaluate it. What complete crap. In your initial comment you make an assumption, I believe, that when certain people criticize J/L it is directed at Dr Johnson. For the record Dr Johnson is the least of my concerns. I have no reason to believe he is not well intentioned. My only criticism of his scientific competency is that he has not come up with the goods. We keep hearing stories about how the process has changed and that he now has the answer. Quite frankly I believe he is flailing around trying to find an answer. I have no particular desire to fund his experimentation any longer. My major concern regarding J/L is directed towards Dr Johnson's associates. It certainly appears to me that at least one individual associated with J/L has consistently and deliberately spread false rumours about the J/L process in order to further his own economic interest at our expense. I do not trust these people. The J/L partnership is a cancer that is destroying any hope Naxos has of becoming a successful company. Their adherents have already scuttled one attempt to refocus Naxos in, what I believe, was a more fruitful direction. It is tough enough for a small mining company to prosper in the current environment without having a millstone tied around it's neck. Henry