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 (17171)	12/10/1998 4:29:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 20681

Brad, Aren't you the same guy that was pleading for any information this morning? For some kind of update? Now you think they should have waited, and want some update on J/L? HMMMMMMMM? It appears (to me) that J/L and the good Father must be very nervous........ mark

To: BGM who wrote (17171)	12/10/1998 9:28:00 PM
From: sh	Respond to of 20681

Mr. Mertz, I have no idea why some people are questioning your motives in asking those very legitimate questions. While I, like anyone else, love to have positive information, we cann't accept things like we did in the past. The hard questions have to be asked and you did a great job in asking many of them. I believe the company should have addressed a number of the questions in the release (or at least in a separate release regarding some of your questions). With that said, again, I still have hope in the property. It has been management that has been my concern. Despite its inadequacies, the release gives us some information and I do appreciate that. sh

To: BGM who wrote (17171)	12/11/1998 8:27:00 AM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Respond to of 20681

Brad, If you read my exchanges with Mark you will see that I agree that this information should not have been released at such a preliminary stage and in such a sketchy format. I also agree with your numbered questions and would like answers to those as well. I would also like to see a formal update on our relationship with J/L. I am willing, however, to let management make the decision on wether to continue working with J/L without an extensive explanation (I believe this is a minor point of disagreement). I will say, as I have indicated in the past, that I believe we as shareholders have enough reasons already to question wether the company should continue doing business with J/L. On the technical front they claimed to have a process over a year ago. Subsequently the process has been altered and as of yet remains unverified. So their original representations on the technical nature of the process were clearly wrong and perhaps intentionally misleading. On the ethical side there are also major questions. The conflict of interest situation has been discussed here ad nauseum. There is also the question of the blizzard of false and misleading rumours we have been fed about their results. These rumours frequently led back to the same source. To me this created some glaring questions about their business practices. This is why I would be happy to hear that J/L is gone. But for the recored I have no idea wether that is the case or is even be contemplated. Regards Henry