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 Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sudhir Khanna who wrote (14893)	2/17/1999 1:04:00 PM
From: Rick the Vet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26850

Interesting that they would decide to sample 5000 carats instead of some of the other programs which sample 1000 carats. IMO this will not only help the credibility of the discovery but also help offset some of the costs involved. I am no expert but I think the extraction costs per carat would be reduced by taking a larger sample. If they were to get lucky and find a nice gem quality stone of 50 carats or greater the pay off would be better yet. P.s. Looks like we are in a "sit tight" mode right now in terms of stock price and volume.

To: Sudhir Khanna who wrote (14893)	2/17/1999 2:23:00 PM
From: Walt	Respond to of 26850

Thanks Sudhir, I stand corrected. Its at least 1000 carats per pit with a little to spare. Someone else asked and it is indeed cheaper per ton to take a bigger sample, usually, since alot of the cost is in getting to the kimberlite. Limiting fasctor is time and haulage. regards Walt

To: Sudhir Khanna who wrote (14893)	2/17/1999 3:23:00 PM
From: John Paquet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

Hi! Sudhir; Yahohoohohhohohoho!!!!!!&&Wawawawawawawawaw!!!!!! I appreciate your honest and true evaluation and assesment of our current WSP. She still need LOTS LOTS WORK TO JUSTSTIFY THIS $3.33 MARKET VALUE. That LONG DARK BLACK CANDLE STICK SHADOW IMAGES DID NOT LIE AT ALL. IN FACT IT SPEAKS CLEARLY AND LOIUDLY cuz the market knows everthing, evrerything known, everycontions in the foreseable future. and THE TAPE DID NOT LIE EITHER IT TELLS THE TRUTH, THE WHOELTRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. Sudhir Man, this is the best posts I ever read from you and I say "THANK YOU!!!!" 1.the amount of carats needed for a statistically valid valuation is specific to each case in question. 2.an appropriate samples from each phase will need to collected. 3.the biggest UNKNOWN in the moment is the "QUALITY" OF THE STONES IN THE DYKE. 4.THE LARGE SAMPLE [BULK SAMPLE RESULTS RIGHT?????} is needed to establish with some level of confidence the values of diamonds within the dyke. Note this is how important it is without bulk sampling results, or good results, our wsp would be in very very so in that penny stock under $1.00 etc...... Stay tune!!!!!!! 5.The large sample will also help wsp establish confidence in the size distribution model. 6.This is important for our wsp to stay more than $1.00 is; In order to attract providing financing wsp will have to provide the Bankers with a significant level of confidence a production grade. With financing success, wsp will not be a mine. This is just that simple. 7.It is too early to quess at production grade. I am glad that you Sudhir Man did not make big assumption or good guess here. Thank you for your true assesment. Over ALL; this posts is mush fair and staright, much and much better those times of BIG ASSUMTION. hAVE A GOOD DAY sUDHIR mAN. John Paquet BTW based on the facts that our wsp still need lots lots work to justify its MARKET VALUE, I SEE THAT $2.56 IN FEW SEESIONS TO COME. BEWARE!!!!I AM NOT KIDDING AT ALL. FOLKS!!!!!!!! YAHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!!!!!WAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWAWW!!!! HAHHAHAHAAHAH!!!!

To: Sudhir Khanna who wrote (14893)	2/18/1999 3:07:00 PM
From: John Paquet	Respond to of 26850

Hi! Sudhir; I was preparpring 3-4 pages argument to be posting on the weekend regarding your RESOURCES INDICATOR...... sINCE your last posts proves that you have improved so I guess I do not need to then.... The format I set it out as follows; AS a RESOURCES iNDICATOR IT SHOULD LAYOUT LIKE THIS: 1. RESOURCES VERY BULLISH INDICATOR THEN... 2. RESOURCES BULLISH INDICATOR THEN REASONS OR 3. RESOURCES NEUTRAL INDICATOR THEN ASSESMENT 4. RESOURCES BEARISH INDICATOR THEN RATIONAL 5. RESOURCES VERY BEARISH INDICATOR THEN ... At any time, If I am a newsletter writer, I would not give one specific CATEGORY AS CLASSIFIED AS ABOVE 5 CATEGORIES UNLESS i AM FOR SURE 100% SURE, but since the only one would know for sure is "God", if I ASSUME OR i TAKE IT FOR GRANTED FOR ONE SPECIFIC category, then I will undertake greater risk and or my career reputation as a newsletter writer could undertake a great damage if I was wrong. I read many jounalists their writing always lay out like above 5 category or 3 catategories. Every categories the jounalist would give reasons, rationals, assesment or quoting someone's assesment, therefor the jounalists have avoid any risk or reputation as a good jounalist. Anyway this is just my thought. John Paquet