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 : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Walsh who wrote (10116)	4/11/1999 2:30:00 PM
From: Thor Carlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Bob, true enough. Which would make answering the rest of the questions quite easy, no? Here is 1 and 2 revised. Also... Are you answering some of the other questions or commenting? If you are answering then you are speaking for the Company? The origin of the question came from Harry Roberts and was addressed to Dennis. The "previous SI posts" I was referring to, would be prior PR's re-posted here on this thread. Otherwise, I don't think it is a waste of one hour or two for management to answer the rest of these EASY questions or any others that some people might have. Any others??? Please add to bottom of list. Thor I own stock at .16 cents, so I am not disgruntled. Dennis: 1) When will regular and continuing monthly or weekly checks start to be received? 2)What are your monthly fixed costs and what are your estimated monthly variable costs at 20t/day, 40t/day and 100t/day? 3) To get that fresh blood requires more than a PR Newswire release every 2 or 3 weeks. 4) You should talk to Dick and announce your PR strategy for the coming months -- 5) current investors need to know you'll be doing something significant to introduce new people to the company. 6) Please post or release a statement on this ASAP. 7) is it time for a real CFO? 8) One who by his very reputation will bring attention to the company? 9) Or is it time to announce specific steps and by when the company intends to handle the OTC BB crackdown? 10) Or file this year's annual financials? Or let a major take a minority stake, if only again to make GPGI more legitimate? 11) Any of these non-mining issues could give confidence to the market, and there's no reason why you guys need to be stingy with the releases. 12) You guys have got enough going on now, at HQ as well as in the desert, to make regular announcements about how you intend to legitimize this company legally, financially, and via a high stock price. 13) Tell us about management's direction and intent -- tell us about how you are bringing in new blood. 14) Make us feel like this company is healthy and not about to go to an all-time low.

To: Bob Walsh who wrote (10116)	4/11/1999 2:54:00 PM
From: Larry Brubaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14226

Bob, a small correction. <<Wouldn't it be much better to wait and submit financials that contain at least one quarter's worth of positive cash flow? That would then mean that an outside auditor reviewed GPGI's statement of income and expense and attested to a positive cash flow.>> Outside auditors must only review the annual financial report. There is no requirement to have quarterly financial statements audited.

To: Bob Walsh who wrote (10116)	4/11/1999 3:08:00 PM
From: Scott Wheeler	Respond to of 14226

<< ...is probably putting the cart before the horse >> Good point. But they don't have forever. I think a real worry would be any interruption in OTC listing (question #9). It's a good list of questions, and the stockholders should get good answers. I agree that there are some questions that should be addressed rather-sooner-than-later. However, I hope that there is room enough (we stockholders will accept) for the company and its officers if they respond with "I don't know". No officer at any company will ever have ready answers to all questions. And it would be absurd to expect the same level of organization at Global as you would from a NYSE or NASDAQ-level security - at this point, anyway. This is still a tiny struggling company, surviving on scraps. I hope that we stockholders do not expect five-year business plans, ivy-league-MBA CFOs nor anything else that would be ludicrous and inappropriate for a company at this stage of life to attempt. We need to also remember IMO that (following Mr. Walsh's point) things need to happen in proper sequence, e.g., as a general principle I like the idea of having a CFO, but for Global - now? I don't think it's time yet for that - there are more important immediate goals than populating the front window with expensive mannequins to impress market passers-by, IMO. Convince me otherwise if you can, but that's how I see it. I am afraid that Global officers have been beat on so much, that now they feel so defensive, their instincts are to withdraw and clam up, rather than continue the dialogue, for fear of more flaming and abuse. Sorry irony - this withdrawal unfortunately produces just what they were worried about - the terseness of replies (or silence!) enrages stockholders further, producing more defensiveness and withdrawal, and the fiasco sends us all spiraling down into the mud. It is another reason (thanks, Thor) I will continue to lobby for respectful tones here. I must also charge the company with taking some risks in this regard - no matter what you do, someone won't like it, so get used to it, do your best and then forget about the criticism you either cannot or should not respond to. I've said before, significant cash flow will make many hands put down their rocks (but not all hands). SW