RE: RE: RE: Two balls and a sonI see what you did there. Clever! I compared you to a Fox News pundit and you reply in *exactly* the same manner as a Fox News pundit.
First: You attack my moral sensibilities with a "you like to rub sulfur on the open woulds of deer and skull-**** mother Earth"esq comment. Despite a lack of proof.
Second: You claim to know my standards for this company and claim that those fictional standards are blown way out of proportion. Thus making me look like someone who is unrealistic. Again, despite the lack of proof. I know what this company is capable of in both the short term and long term, suffice to say I am carefully managing both prospects with short and long strategies.
Third: You attempt to craft doubt by coupling the fact that there is no mining at a property that is presently being explored (technically inaccurate) by an exploration company; coupled with a comment that is geared to generate uncertainty without outright committing to saying "there is no interest" -because for whatever reason you don't seem to be want to be proven wrong. I'm assuming you're letting the reading public draw their own conclusions on that one, you're just planting a seed.
I won't touch on your use of 'bold', which is really akin to typing your whole argument in capital letters.
Your presentation is somewhere in the middle between Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. Sensationalist and without thought, but just convincing enough that anyone who has no idea of the processes involved might be otherwise convinced. Fortunately you've chosen the worst forum to engage in.
Sincerely and with little regard,
~Jack
PS: The best part about this is that even if you don't reply, anyone who reads it will be a bit wiser to your tactics.