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: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (17259)	12/15/1998 10:30:00 AM
From: BGM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Henry: I agree with your post. Much confusion comes from any shareholder trying to understand what was to be given, to whom, and for what in any of these relationships. It is time for the company to report on the results of JL so we can understand. Their last release indicated they were still working with them. We now have a number of posts here that indicate they are not. Why will the company not clarify this with information that specifically cites what JL has reported or not from their efforts? This reporting could indicate a lack of results if we are not going to work with them, or this reporting could indicate sporadic results that would justify continued exploration. Did we not get results? What did we pay for? We seem to pay for many things that just slip away? Brad Mertz

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (17259)	12/17/1998 11:54:00 PM
From: sh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

Mr. V, You who claimed to never have time to speak to Mr. Fred Arkoosh (you're an idiot for considering us such fools), there is a difference between belief based on reasonable evidence and completely irrational beliefs. I and others believe in the richness of FL based on the numerous tests conducted by numerous entities (including Ledoux, which has not backed down from at least pre-1998 assays, but to my knowledge, has completely backed them up even in the ASC hearings) that show that the property is indeed a property that contains significant amounts of PMs. While it is yet to be established that these PMs can be recovered economically, the evidence is sufficient enough at this point for me to consider as abhorrent the idea of giving up at least one-third of FL in order to pursue FL research. I do not support giving up one-third of the company to J/L or to Norton and company. I do support pursuing a viable agreement with J/L, who have been researching the property the longest and I have not been given sufficient information by the company to discount the legitimacy of the apparent positive results of their research. If you have, then by all means DISCLOSE it. I adamantly oppose someone giving up on FL without shareholder input, understanding and permission. That is what Kemp and company seemed to be in the process of doing and you better believe that small and large shareholders are livid at this prospect. If they cann't rationally explain their reasons for giving up on FL, we are going to be angry at them and demand their removal! And your wavering attitude about this issue appears to me as simply an attempt to cover all the bases just in case one proves to be successful. It maybe you are just a confused man. If so, you should be demanding answers from management rather than advocating they remain silent until the whole testing, etc. processes are completed (while it may work for a start-up company, it will never work for Naxos, which has fed its shareholders with information about the progress of the research at FL regularly). sh