RE: Millright, Somewhat Obvious but Obdoingthejob, aka aatozz,
You're mistaken in your belief that I am a buddy. However, like you, I too believe that Randy played a role in "steering" ISM to it's highs back in the spring of 2007. All nickel companies got ahead of themselves at that time, as a result of the commodity bubble - but ISM got a long way ahead of itself, on an intense promotion job by a number of professional promoters. We'll never know how directly these were linked to the steering by Randy that you have identified - but there are some indications that Randy played a role, as you suggest. He was the one that hired Bill Cawker, for IR services, and Bill has been close to a shill who is widely known, and was very active in the ISM promotion of those days - so a reasonable man might link Randy to some of the promotion effort, and the unachievable expectations that as you admit, were dashed on the release of the Mico4e83 Report. And as we have been reminded here lately, Randy was directly involved in promotion in the media - at the same time he was unloading a hefty chunk of his cheap shares at prices near the all-time high of $7+. The promotion by the pro's continued on in to the summer, when Randy arranged the flow through issue that ended up only partly flowing through to exploration - eventually leading to substantial government penalties and a loss of reputation in the financial community.
Personally, I wouldn't consider Randy's part in these activities to be the career highlight that you seem to think it is. A number of investors who bought shares during the time of this unwarranted enthusiasm would agree with me. Of course I'm also not going to hand out any kudos for a NI43-101 that might come out in 2011, that might include an economic evaluation - because 2011 will be three years after Randy announced to the press all phases of the Micon Report would be released. I don't consider missing delivery by two to three years to be any reason for admiration.
You seem to feel you are able to advise what a CA should know about reading financial statements. This surprises me, considering the fool you made of yourself on financial analysis topics. It also surprises me that someone who wrongly concluded that Randy Miller had paid $500,000 to receive option grants, would comment on what the financial statements show as exploration costs in exchange for shares. Would you please explain from which parts of the financial statements you gleaned the information that "More than half of what is spent on exploration has been done with company stock in exchange for services." I would also ask that you explain what you are getting at about "The concept of multiple corporate entities and holding companies should not be foreign to you to shield liability", as it pertains to anything I have said about ISM - or as to how this strategy is being used by ISM.
You throw around quite a few concepts and pronouncements without any explanation of your reasoning. Given some of your past blunders, you should expect to be asked to explain these conclusions of yours. My expectation for you responding to a request for explanation is very low - maybe you could surprise me?