Barkerville Gold Mns Ltd BGMZF

RE:Hammer161. I just re read your post....hmmm,

[hammer161]

Wango - you continue to make stuff up. I have NEVER said I compared all re-assay or metallic screen results of ALL of the holes as you say I have - you find the post if you think I said that seeing as though you conveniently "missed it". Several posters on here, including myself, have gone back to old press releases and made SOME individual drill hole intersection comparisons of released metallic results to original results. Results were variable - some were more than the original results, some were the same, and some were lower than the originals. Bottom line is that there is no way to assert that there will be a consistent 20% increase as you assume - and the results of my and others investigations suggest that if there is an increase that it will be lower than that if any at all. The lack of a timely release does suggest that the results do not make a material change. And just for your education Wacko with respect to assay results please note that there are different kinds: fire assay with AA finish, fire assay with gravimetric finish and metallic screen analysis. All are reliable depending on the style and grade of mineralization, but generally they are accepted in that order of precedence as one being better than another. Note though that just because a high grade gravimetric finish fire assay is re-evaluated by metallic screen analysis it does not mean that you will get a higher result - you could get anything. For CM some of the higher grade assays results are best evaluated by metallic screens. It is however a very expensive method relative to the others. Perhaps you should learn something about what you want to talk about before actually doing so.