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 : Winspear Diaminds (Bulls Board) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: .Trev who wrote (67)	1/31/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: freddy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1172

I wouldn't throw out Kaiser yet.He may adjust to a more positive stance.He spent quite a bit of time with J.McD. and others on WSP in the last week trying to get a grip on the statistics and what Malcolm Thurston's model meant.The cup might be "half full" now and I would be happy to see any positive comments from JK.What would be his low point is that he takes credit for the "unpresidented disclosure" that highlites the WSP NR. The standard of disclosure that Winspear delivered to the market and their intent to be accurate was the reason for the delay. Another key indicator in a change of opinion from both JK + BB is that the two of them showed up at the WINSPEAR HOSPITALITY SUITE and drank the COMPANY'S BOOZE.

To: .Trev who wrote (67)	1/31/1999 8:33:00 PM
From: Chad Barrett	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1172

<< Among people of intelligence the salting accusation is already dead. >> I personally have never believed the possible salting theory! However, I am not foolish enough to totally discount ANYTHING because nobody would have believed that Busang was salted either.... right? I do believe that WSP is for real, and the more information we get, the more I believe so. << You obviously hit the "next" button on my post earlier in the day but that doesn't bother me. >> I did hit the "next" button on your post... AFTER I had read it! I have absolutely no idea what it was in my message that made you "hostile" towards me.. ??? I simply stated that I did not think that Kaiser and Bishop would slam WSP if they produced results similar to those teevee proposed in his message. If we get those results in the 6000 tonne sample, I honestly believe that JK and BB would either sing the praises of WSP, or just keep their mouths shut! I do NOT think they would argue with the results from a major bulk sample... that is all I was saying! The reason for saying it, is because I feel like some people are slagging newsletter writers (in particular JK) excessively because he advised caution due to the small size of the current sample - which is a legitimate reason to advice caution (whether or not we like it or not) - and at the time he did so the CF results were not out yet! Perhaps the manner in which he did it wasn't that impressive though? I certainly do not put much credit in what newsletter writers say, but I do pay some attention to them as they can affect the trading in a stock. << In summary what I was trying to get across is a simple statement that the people in the know are confident that the distribution is there as we would like to have it. >> Being a long term bull on WSP, its hurts me to have to point out such obvious things as this... however, perhaps this needs to be pointed out. I have NEVER heard of any management, exploration managers, etc. of a company to not be absolutely positive and 100% sure that they were going to have a GREAT exploration program with GREAT results that would reward all shareholders, send the share price through the roof, etc.... It seems to be part of their job description to be "100% positive". I fully appreciate the fact that you were able to meet them and hear what they have to say. I think that is great, and it does provide all of us with valuable information. I for one appreciate you letting us know of your experience! It made me more comfortable with WSP to know that the main players behind the company present well in public. Also, I know that sometimes you can tell if the enthusiasm and confidence is fake or sincere... your inner censors told you it was sincere - that is good for us all to know. I wholeheartedly thank you for sharing your insights. I'm sure that I am not the only person who appreciated them. << and last but by no means least get somebody you trust to explain the CF results to you . >> Once again, I don't know why you attacked me like this?? I certainly did not make any mention to the CF results, nor did I indicate that I felt that WSP wouldn't be able to produce similar results in the 6000 tonne bulk sample. All I said was that I felt JK and BB would not slag WSP if they got the great results teevee proposed in his message. I stated that because it was from a 6000 tonne bulk sample it would be enough to convince them (or anyone for that matter). That is the point of a bulk sample that size! Now, more specifically... I certainly do not need any help interpreting the CF results. I am quite sure that I have a much stronger mathematical background than you do and I can assess the statistical significance of those results quite easily. Can you? Have you? Or have you just taken the companies word for the fact that the results show great continuity of the diamond distribution throughout the dyke? Every junior mining company I know of would say that the results support whatever facts they want it to support. I hope that you go back and read my original post and ask yourself why you responded to me the way you did? I'm curious to know why myself? Feel free to take this up with me in private if you prefer as I believe this may have stemmed from a misunderstanding of some sort? Chad