RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Doubling down after newsletter sale recommendationI really should know better that to be drawn into debate with an idiot. Particularly after have been warned, "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience"
In this case you posted, "Given the very narrow and apparently irregular distribution of the manganese oxide mineralization, it now seems likely that the entire ore deposit should be run through the reductive leach process." Now you seem to have difficulty in comprehending this simple sentence.
Please do tell, in which field of mineral processing does and education not permit the obvious conclusion that simple cyanide leech extraction would likely vary widely, across the Boleras deposit, parrticularly since the metallurgical program was designed to evaluate a range of ore grades, which necessarily would have to come from different locations within the deposit.
Perhaps you missed the class where they might have explaine that exchange disclosure rules are crafted for run run-of-the-mill idiots, and not for brilliant educated people like yourself.
And I don't care much for "credibilty", which is pretty much an oxymoron anyway, in anontmous settings like this forum. Most of my postings are links to external reference materials, which I dig up during my extensive DD. I post them mostly as a public service, also I do find it useful to have them archived here, so that I can find them again later whithout searching all over again.
SmarterThanYou wrote: You're going to make conclusions about the distribution of manganese based on what I posted from the newsletter? How do you have read through from that, that no-one else has?
He could easily provide some preliminary numbers, and anyone who is educated in the field of mineral processing (like myself) would be able to understand them.
Maybe you'll be right one day, but at the current time, you are lying to yourself and erasing any sort of credibility you may have had (with others)