RE:CONFIRMED - Newlox NOT green - Using Cyanide in Projects!
Ok, I don't have much time tonight so I'll try to make your next death on the bullboard quick.
This is how easy it is:
Step 1. Load up the Google Machine.
Step 2. Type in "Merrill-Crowe "Newlox""
Step 3. Check out the first result (you don't even have to scroll down. Really, it's that easy!)
Here, I'll leave it for you:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://thecse.com/en/file/35200/download%3Ftoken%3DbxBUb5XX&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiIz5_0neTzAhUjIDQIHZVNBB0QFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw3SIpe5FLg4ALKYjQ7d3uET
That, my wayward friend, is an operations update from December 16, 2014 (with a Newlox Gold Header no less! - it can be found SADAR as well) describing the expansion of the first plant and, without any smoke and daggers, clearly states that the modified Merrill-Crowe process is used to leach the gold from the concentrate. That's plant 1 by the way; you know, the template for the newly commissioned plant 2. In 2014.. so, not yesterday and 'my God everyone is just so surprised'.
Step 4. Go on Wikipedia and do a bit of light reading on what the Merrill-Crowe Process is. Then when you're done, because investing in stocks isn't like throwing darts at random post-it notes, maybe it's a good time to go ahead and read about Carbon-in-Pulp and Carbon-in-Leach too. I mean call me crazy, but you are investing in a gold processing company so maybe it's a good idea to have even a passing understanding of how that is done?
Here you are; I know searching this whole indexed internet thing is still pretty new to you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrill%E2%80%93Crowe_process
Isn't it odd that every time you demand I show you some proof without even breaking a sweat on my tippy-tappy fingers I'm able to quickly pull something up to show you, once again, just how wrong you are? Yet, when it comes time for you to put up or shut up it's always 'but what about this or that other thing'..
I'll make it easy for you (I mean I already did, but we'll give you a second chance):
You claim, and I quote,
"that this company has been irresponsibly representing itself as an eco-friendly mining company using safe alternatives to cyanide when the truth is, they are not."
That's a pretty easy thing to prove, because when you're representing yourself as such you typically don't do it psychically so there should be a paper trail. You're not just claiming an omission of information. No, you went a step further and stated they are claiming to be using "safe alternatives to cyanide". That's very much more than "proof of omission". Where in the world did you get that idea? From a news release? From the slide deck? From all the corporate literature you claim to be familiar with but can never seem to find?
Honestly, two things are happening here: either you REALLY don't know what it means to research a company you're investing in and are completely out of your depth or you're being willfully ignorant and preying upon the potentially poor understanding of other retail investors in an attempt to drive the price down for whatever reason. My money is still leaning toward the former.
So go ahead and show all these good people the particular information you know of where Newlox has claimed to be using "safe alternatives to cyanide, when the truth is, they are not."
You chose your sword afterall; try not trip and impale yourself on it. My hat and I will be waiting.