RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Goldy - Which is More < or > Goldy63 wrote: schocor wrote: Patrick2Linton wrote: Goldy63 wrote: So Hole Ten as Tom said huge metres over at least 1% Copper HIGH Grade in and email right . So AW Fluff ? Grades coming ? . Heres why . Yes a CEO Email from Tom coming at YOU .
Actual results in news release a few days later was .44% copper over 2 meters.
Front running scumbag. Gracias. Tik tok. Grinnnn. Schillin for a livin. Cheers mate.
Lying scum b a g, OR, not smart enough to understand kindergarden math? Either way.....credability!!
WHy does he continue posting? He HAS to underastdn that he is part of the reason this is $.03 during hibernation/equity raise season.
Would yuo like it if my 5 year old granddaughter tutored you in Math Goldy? Of my seven year old in reading comprehension? I have a 15 year old grandson who has never formall taken grology that could probably help you out there as well.
GOldy # < vs >
Eat crow already and grow a pair Soccer . Email is posted and grow a pair already . Tom expected 1% but again the NR concerning hole ten just hit the edge of the plate and drill malfuctioned and yup still open to depth and thats the second time I say this . Are you braindead drunk or both . Or just slinging spew as nothing better to do . Man up . The email is posted no go bang your head some more on a brick wall crumblord . Long Bay.
Where did it say Thomas was expecting more than 1%? As far as I can tell YOU were the only one who ever wrote that the assay from hole #10 woudl be over 1%.
You claimed to have an email from teh CEO saying that it woudl be over 1%, but when yoyu posted that email it quite clearly saidf <1%. Which leads me to qusetoin if yuo know the difference between < and >
So WHY did yuo post that it woudl be over 1% when it
1> Was not over 1%
2> The CEO apparently indicated to yuo that it would NOT be over 1%?
Were you lying or confused? Simple question.