RE: Waggy1961 Was RightMallgirl, I started looking into some of your other posts, including your pissing contest with GreenieMan on GRH. I have better things to do than figure out who shot who first, or which of you was more inappropriate with name calling. On GRH or any other forum. I don't care.
But it does seem hypocritical that your concept of respect seems to vary with which end of the muzzle blast you're on. Almost all of your posts are positive and encouraging towards people, as long as they agree with you. When someone doesn't, you have a problem with them, even if they are rational and explain what their difference of opinion is. Read your post 15223146 (in response to my post 15220961) if you need to see a glaring example. Your remarks regarding respecting other's opinions are, accordingly, hypocritical and empty to me. I noted a number of other examples, mostly with GreenieMan. And then there was you mini-meltdown in post 15473220. I'm still not clear what that was about, but it doesn't portend to good things as I see it.
All I have done is tell a different opinion of what the results are here with Slam (and stand up for the one other person that did). The former resource implied that at that grade, it was mineable. The revised resource and comments in the report show that most of it is not. Much like opinion, interpretation can vary, but if you actually read the entire report and the comment that anything under 4.35% is not being considered for underground mining, and if you have actually looked at the drill intercept assays and depths, you would rationally know that at least half of this resource will not be mined. The latest assays don't help much. Is the Nash Creek 20m mt resource goal still stated on the Slam web site? If not, why not? Wouldn't that be a set back? Would a resource one fifth/sixth the tonnage size of Brunswick #12 be valuable, even with the lower grades? I doubt if it will happen here now.
Find me an operating or soon-to-be operating zinc mine with underground grades of 3% (Acadian's 3% ore is to be open pitted at half the cost of the underground--the underground is the high grade). Find me one with open pit grades of 2% or less. They may exist. They will be the exception, not the rule. I hope this new zone has a grade greater than 3%. But what I want and what the assays will show may be two very different things.
We're all gambling here. I accept that. I hope the others in this arena understand it as well. But I don't want inexperienced people to get burned by others' overenthusiasm. Especially "don't worry, be happy" comments, or "don't get out of line" browbeating. I will post what I think. If you want to debate it rationally, fine, but if you crack a joke or make another remark that does not rationally address the point made, I will accept it as a lack of objectivity, inability to understand the point at hand, or refusal to deal with something emotionally unacceptable to you.