RE:Kudos to Gamble! Actually, I did have a "thought in mind" when I posted.
It was to get YOUR response in writing the question.
And then call you out on your answer.
So, you've claimed I can't trust the MD&A, as if the last parapraph in the update is 2 years out of date. Nice. Any lawyers in the house?
As for "technical detail". I think the companies technical detail is just fine, thank you very much. However, yours leaves a lot, and I mean a lot...to be desired.
givemeabreak1 wrote:
He did not approach it as a pump but rather asked question and appeared to legitamately misunderstand the MD&A which is pretty easy to make that mistake especially with companies that seem to have difficulty with technical detail.
Kudos to gamble he asked the question with a thought in mind. The thought was not valid but he did not declare some massive undercounting of the stockpile! Good job this time Gamble!