Shovel, Shovel, ShovelWow, so many pundits here.
So many gurus, crystal ballers,
jargon, jive and BS experts.
I asked a simple question:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monedas, you wrote: 1. The histroical data shows that you "must drill deeper than 300 meters" to encounter any gold of significant concentrations.
A. Which historical data?
B. Are you implying that gold is only found below 300 meters and that there are no significant gold finds above 300 meters?
Monedas, you wrote: 2. The hole reported was 287 meters and guess what ---- Nothing of interest.
A. What would be "of interest?" They didn't assay anything yet. They can't claim anything before an official assay.
B. What would you be looking for in the PR that would be of interest?
The last question is important. What can they say in this PR that would indicate to you that there was something "interesting"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO I GET AN ANSWER? NOOOOOOOOOO
Now I ask another simple question of Lucky5:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Share with the Board the FACTS, REASONS, THE WHY you have changed your attitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO I GET AN ANSWER? NOOOOOOOOO!!!
From Monedas, I get silence.
From Lucky5 I get existential lectures.
From Doggy I get conspiracy theories.
Yes, yes, yes doggy, you can put lipstick on a pig and it is still a pig.
And you can put lipstick on a dog and it is still a son-of-a-----------gun.