RE: Public Informationcadomin,
Of course I am not saying that public information released by Gary cannot be discussed. The problem comes when someone [through one or more anonymous aliases] includes in the discussion, a slanderous or libelous remark about a person or the company. You and some of your cohorts have chosen this gutless route. You didn't just express what was your impression of what Dr. Nash said, you came right out and made a public charge "Gary - you lied to us"; your follow up statement was "Gary clearly stated that no more dilution would be required because our stock is too cheap". This is an odd statement to make in explaining that a placement would not be done, as the need for cash dictates when a placement is required, a company seldom has the convenience of saying cash is not required because the stock is too cheap. The interpretation of yours, by you and your cohorts, was challenged by a number of others that were at the meeting. There may be records or tapes of the meeting that would answer the question. Your problem if you were required to answer for your statement would be to prove that Dr. Nash had lied, in responding to discussion on the topic. Of course, in defending your positions the aliases who stated they attended the meeting, would be asked to give some evidence of actually having been there.
I would believe you are capable of lying, just by your actions in the short time you have been on the forum. You lied about the amount of the Salman target, and when challenged, stated you had it front of you. Your stickhandling when caught in that lie was typical of a liar, you dug the hole deeper by lying about another report. But you also included innuendo that "Gary" paid for Salman to give the target price when they initiated coverage, and when challenged you defended this misinformation.
You continue to twist words by saying I think dilution is good for the company. Your typical behaviour, you shift things around and lie about something that I would never say. Avoiding dilution would be great if the Ni price, world economy and several other factors had co-operated. I know that this doesn't always happen, and when competent management is faced with dilution or failure, they choose dilution. The shareholder has a somewhat smaller percentage of something that's viable, rather than a larger percentage of a failed company. A rather simple concept to anyone with a smattering of common sense - but often ignored by those whose purpose is to discredit the company. In your ignorance [or refusal to consider reality] you say the company share price would be higher now and EPS would be higher in the future, if the company had not proceeded with the placement. The fact is that the company would be insolvent, would have to curtail operations lay off staff, etc. The stock would be way under $1. The drilling that produced the recent defining results on Hart would not have resulted in a drilling report and there would be no EPS until someone took over the company for a song. Your theory is idiotic, and in presenting it you are either hoping to discredit management or you are simply an idiot.
You say your conclusions are based on simple math. I would say your version of math is the math of a simpleton. When pumping ISM, you based your conclusion of excellent drilling results on this simple math:".283% of 252 ft[core length] X 218 ft of [true] width. And in an area of 450m long! I guess its true that this is an open pit mine" Care to explain this simple math? The explanation, by the way, would include the word simple!