RE:RE:Paths -- would appreciate your thoughts on the attachedFor the sake of being polite, I had to be somewhat soft and understanding in my criticism of that article, however, it is dissapointing to try my best to write some honest and accurate detailed messages, and then to see their article. They seemed to want to overstate, perhaps a factual reasonable article would not interest subscribers. Since it is essentially an opinion article, they are free to say what they want. It is easy to be able to hide the distribution behind a paywall where it was free of critical replies until now.
They are welcome to come to this board and answer any of the many criticisms that can be made about their article. Are they now having second thoughts, starting to be embarrassed about what was in it? Come on, either defend your article or retract it. People should have been able to have expected better from a couple of trained geologists, however weak their geostatistics understanding may be. This includes issues beyond a poorly written article, meant to encourage short sellers, and released at a time when the company cannot say very much in reply...