RE: Wake up cadomincadomin,
You make a blunder like you did and then talk about credibility. It must be quite a thought process you go through to criticize a company, say that its CEO is a liar, explain why it is running out of funds and has terrible drill results and prospects, and then decide to buy shares in the company!
As I have said before, my link to Liberty involves only the fact that I am a shareholder. If I walked into Dr. Nash's office and introduced myself this minute, he wouldn't have a clue who I was. Your conclusions on that topic are as off base as your bonehead drill result analysis. I don't know what Dr. Nash's thoughts on ISM are, I have never heard or read him express any comments on the topic. As for me, I don't hate ISM - I have no reason to, and besides all it is in an inanimate legal entity. There are some individuals I connect with the company, including some anonymous StockHouse participants, that I don't admire - but that can't be just my weakness, as the feelings seem mutual.
One thing I've learned, is that with the protection of anonymity, it is impossible to immediately determine things about every participant. They can tell you they're so great, you'd think they should qualify to be your personal saviour, or they can play dumb and fool you that way. You can only only start sorting out the people by judging what they say, in relation to apparent and factual data.
In your case, you have now given me enough information that I can classify your character and abilities moreso than your first post - which in itself was an immediate red flag. It is now evident that if you think your facts cannot be checked, you are quite willing to lie. Because you conclude an analyst report is no longer available, you lie, and then insist on repeating the lie when challenged. You swear that a document is right in front of you at that instant and that you are quoting it as FACT - when backed into the corner you make some lame excuse that you were looking at a report by a different analyst, on a different company, for a different amount, issued on a different date. Some might say maybe its a literacy or eyesight problem - I think its just the work of a liar.
I've also learned a few things you're not, from your recent willingness to interpret drilling results. You are not someone that knows much of any value, about the important data in drilling results. That adds to your lack of knowledge about finance, when you described that warrantholders were exchanging costly warrants for cheap warrants, with no cash changing hands. These two subjects are ones you have now proven are well beyond your capabilities - to anyone that has an inkling of what is involved.
There's one other area that I would guess that you are not. You are not a tailor or a clothing retailer. At least if you are, there must be some people running around with some weird outfits in Cadomin AB! Your comprehension of measurements, as described in your drilling result analysis, makes you quite a nitwit around mining circles, and would result in failure as a tailor or haberdasher. Your geological measurement approach is akin to measuring a man for a suit, by taking a standing head to toe mesurement [say 6 feet], then asking him to sit down and taking another head to toe measurement [say 5'11"] - then declaring that a suit should be made up for a man that is 6' tall and 5'11" wide! Isn't going to result in much of a career as a tailor - and doesn't indicate an ability that should encourage you to interpret drill results.
If you are able to explain some rational in your drivel "The question then becomes quantity. How's .635% at 108m deep but with a whopping 38ft X 31ft - I love it when you do it like that" - I'd be willing to reconsider my conclusion, but until then it brands you as a laughable old fool.
The standards you apply to disclosure are about as laughable as your mining and finance nonsense. You indicate there is something wrong with alleged comments by Libery IR, based on what you read in a post by a chat room participant - therefore unsubstantiated. This because you say it is improper to discuss "volumes" before a 43-101 is done. But you support a report by person unqualified to do industry standard "volumes" [or anything else] - that concludes with a "conservative" volume and dollar valuation. Brilliant!