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.

Technology Stocks : Xenolix Technologies (XTCI) 'Ecstasy'(Formerly MGAU) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (2770)	2/15/1999 9:20:00 PM
From: Laser	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5143

Richard, Get real! If this whole exercise was for "internal use" only, then why bother publishing the numbers at all???? The big numbers were used to run the stock up, plain and simple. Now you're saying we should accept these numbers and the CoC simply 'cause they were used for internal due-dilly only on the J/L process?? Yeah right...! I know you're a technical guru on the dirts, so I will look to your enlightenment in the future. BTW, what multiple labs are you ranting about? I see two labs mentioned, this constitutes "multiple"? As far as stock manipulation is concerned, good grief, I hope you're not standing in a glass house while saying that. Anyways, as you have stated many times, nothing said on these threads has any effect on stock price.

To: Richard Mazzarella who wrote (2770)	2/17/1999 12:55:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5143

Richard, I saw a recent announcement used the phrase 'internal chain of custody'. I found the use of this phrase troublesome. If they do analysis for internal purposes that is fine, I would expect them to do so. And I am sure that is what they were doing. But I have a problem with them using the phrase 'internal chain of custody'. Chain of custody is a specific term that has a precise meaning in the mining industry. It means, by defined usage, an external test used to provide reliable third party verification. To say internal chain of custody is in effect to say internal external verification. This is clearly nonsense and contradictory. Now if the purpose of this report is to inform the industry of their progress this phrase will be a problem. Mining professionals will see the phrase 'internal chain of custody' as self contradictory and therefore meaningless. So why would they use such a phrase? Perhaps because individual investors will not be as inquisitive about such a phrase. Individual investors might accept the phrase chain of custody without being sufficiently quizzical about the nullifying effect of it being internal. I recognize that this may be appear to be a question of semantics. But certain terms have specific meanings in the mining industry. And when someone uses such a term in what appears to me to be a questionable manner it does give one reason to ask questions. Henry