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 (17545)	1/26/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Henry- I agree with you, to a point.(big surprise, eh?) Yes, that kind of release can certainly qualify as hype. However, to really be hype, there has to be an intention to hype. there hs to be a desire on the part of the company to cause the the stock price to raise on false or misleading information. As you said, I don't think that is the case here. but I do understand what youare sying regarding caution, and cynicism. As shareholders in a highly speculative investment, we must treat eveything with a degree of cynicism nd hold the investment to the highest degrees of proof. Hopefully, our investment can stand the spotlight, but only time will tell. Mark

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (17545)	1/26/1999 11:20:00 AM
From: Larry Macklin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

henry, i could be wrong but i think that naxos HAD to release that news. It is material information and i wouldnt be surprised at all if Garders legal council insisted that it be released. It is my understanding that naxos would rather release NOTHING until they relaese proof. Larry

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (17545)	1/26/1999 11:26:00 AM
From: Tom Frederick	Respond to of 20681

Henry, I understand what you are saying and why. What I think Naxos has done to itself over the years is put itself in a position unlike most exploratory companies. While the guidelines for releasing data are certainly the norm for most exploratory companies, Naxos had a long history of "jumping the gun" so to speak and telling the shareholders much more than most companies would even consider. The "new Naxos" I believe is trying to swing back to the center, since a full swing in the opposite direction would get too many shareholders just too upset about getting NO news at all, especially since, to the best of our knowledge, OUR company is down to the last sheckles trying to prove if their is gold or not. The perfect world scenereo works fine if you have a major company just poking holes in the ground all over the world waiting for a "hit". Naxos is a one shot deal and we are down to the last few breaths. With that in mind, I imagine there is tremendous pressure from many to get any significant developments published. And the ability to use a fire assay to get results which match up with the recovery test is certainly significant. But Naxos walks the line by offering "news" but not over pumping by clearly saying things like "development stage" and "unproven". JMHO, Tom F.

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (17545)	1/26/1999 11:30:00 AM
From: Neal davidson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20681

Henry: When do we know when there really has been proof?? If Management says it in a release, is it proof? If Austin Lett says it is true, is that proof? If a consulting lab approves of language in a release, is it proof? If Ledoux certifies results, does that constitute proof? If Ledoux certifies results on chain of custody material, is that proof? If a gold bar comes out of the pilot plant, is that proof? If three independent labs confirm the results would that constitute proof? This last measure of proof might convince me. What would convince you? What does management need to see before it should release results?