Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
“One can only base a RATIONAL decision upon past performance”
Basing a decision upon past performance often doesn’t lead to the right decision. Or else trading as well as sports gambling would make everybody rich. Especially in pennyland. People are here because they know the risk is a bit higher, but if a company surprises the reward is a lot higher too.
Making a rational decision only based on the past in pennyland, is like choosing which callgirl your wife is less likely to find out about.
“I guess there are always two sides to every story.”
I think that you forget about the third option. The one without insinuation and bias. The one where one admids that not all the facts are known and everything else is pure speculation.
So saying it will never happen is skeptisicm, and saying they have started drilling is plain BS.
That puts things in perspective!
How ‘some’ investors interpreted a PR, doesn’t mean that “the company itself seemed so damn sure that the drilling would start Nov. 1st.”
“But some insisted for weeks, over and over and over, that "drilling had started". “
Yes, some insisted it did and some insisted it never would, but the last part doesn’t matter does it?
By the way, I never daid drilling had started, and I never said it would never happen. IMO this ‘some’, is a bit overrated.
“Also, the company itself seemed so damn sure that the drilling would start Nov. 1st.”
Did they? “The drilling program will begin by November 1, 2018.”
“Makes one wonder what the real reason for the delay was.”
A couple of questions:
Why does it matter that much?
What could the ‘delay’ be in your opinion?
Could it just be that Major had some extended works with the equipment or operators on another job, so they’d asked Mexus if it was okay to start a bit later?
Or that they did some preps on the drilling location in the first week of November, which was the actual start of the ‘drilling program’ and that they already had planned to start the actual drilling two weeks later, because of other obligations?
It isn’t just mexus who said the program would start the first week of November, so why would Mexus be the reason it took to weeks for the firts proof of drilling?
I’ve also seen a lot of institutional investors come and go. They might know about the lawsuit, but never once a question was asked about it on a CC. It just isn’t a topic yet. So no need to look for price movemends based on filing a letter. The same goes for GERS. It’s the final court descission they are all waiting for. Meanwhile nobody cares about it.
I didn’t suggest that but harry thought (if I read it right) defendants might not have filed their reply on the appeal. And that if they would have done so, you could maybe tell by a positive movement in the defendants SP.
My bets are on GERS. I own some PEIX, but I forgot why LOL
I’m just saying why the first pictures being released 2 weeks after the program doesn’t seem strange to me. Maybe there can be other technical reasons too. But hey, you’re the expert. But it still doesn’t worry me it took them two weeks.
“I have no idea what "mapping" you are talking about. “
I used to drill cores from roads for researching the construction. I know that before you go to drill an completely new project, there is first some research at the property to be done, the you go back to the drawing table and make a drill plan before you start. It can be done faster, but it all depends on the project, how many people are on it, and the time schedule you’ve agreed on, it can be you agree to do some brief research first, but to start drilling weeks to months later.
Almost never the drilling is based on information delivered by the client, because it could be it is inaccurate.
These road drills are just small portable drills to drill short cores. You can drill a lot of them in a day.
But I expect it might take longer if you are drilling a lot deeper. And it also might need a little more time to do some research in advance.
But that’s with roads, that’s where I base some guessing on.
They never stated they started drilling in the ground at November 1st. They stated “The drilling program will begin by November 1, 2018.”
To me it feels like a drilling program includes the complete work, including setting up, actual drilling, mapping, more drilling and reporting to the company.
But I have to admit, I didn’t know how long setting things up take and getting ready to start the drill. But now I have an idea.
They went to the toilet for a moment, but no worries, they are drilling again.
So if I want to hire somebody for drilling I have to make sure I also have to include getting in the car, starting the car, driving over, prepare the drilling, write the contract...
I guess that’s it... Mexus forgot to tell Major drilling to countersign the contract... that was the delay!
I understand, if a person asks me “Do you smoke or do you drink” it’s a strange question, because they can see if I do so at that time. And you can’t drink and talk at the same time, so that answer is always no.
Hey did you know they stopped drilling?
“IMO, any defendant who does file a response by the new deadline could see higher trading volume and possibly a higher stock price in their stock.”
As you know, I’m a shareholder of the defendant PEIX for many years now.
The only way I learned about this case, was because of the posts by shlashnuts. PEIX never showed any action related to court descissions, and also I don’t think many shareholders know about it.
“On the other hand, some have said over and over and over that drilling was happening since Nov. 1st. And it wasn't.”
Yeah right as soon as they do something else, like preperations or changing a drill, they aren’t drilling. Is drilling just the actual action of making a hole, or is it also all the other work that comes with it?
“Some say there is no drilling at the Santa Elena Mine When that was said, it was true. Today's PR confirms it.”
The one who posted, there was no drilling stated: ”I stand by my original position. Mexus isn’t drilling, nor will they. .”
His original position was far from just saying, there was no drilling at that time.
We know Greenshift needed to posts their appeal at a certain time, and we didn’t see that also. So don’t expect to much if it is filed, but some how not available for us.
I believe with Greenshif it had to do with the case number, but I’m not sure if that was the only reason we didn’t see it right away.
I don’t know too much about drilling for gold in a way that is in accordance with 43-101 rules, but it would surprise me if all the drilling took place in the place where they expect all the gold. I think it’s more about ‘mapping’ the area to see where is what and in which amount. Else you wouldn’t need to drill IMHO
LOL yeah, that’s probably a very good way to examin the cores.
“Not changing my tune at all...I still firmly believe there is no drilling”
Let me help move these goalposts, it might hurt someone’s back to move them around that often.
http://mexusgoldus.com/media-gallery/photos/santa-elena-mine-2/
These good ol’ goalposts
That would surprise me a lot. If somebody has been holding that long, they would have had a reason for it. And they would probably know what the play is here. In that case they would accept the possiblity of losing the rest and stick around.
Well I guess we disagree on that too.
IMO If there is a possibility that he didn't claim talking to company reps, it's impossible to say "I did refute another poster's claims that they had too talked to company reps". To refute something, you'll have to prove with a 100% certainty that you're right, otherwise it isn't refuting, but just saying there is a possibility.
If I say I did refute that claim by you, it is refuting, because I did prove there are other options.
By the way, It doesn't matter to me who's right or wrong but it's more that if people are claiming something to be factual, I want to know the facts. However, I will be the last to say that I never claimed a fact but was proven wrong in the end, so if you prove me wrong I'll admit it
“I was trying to point out the irony of a poster, who routinely conveys new information about Mexus that is potentially learned from talking to company reps, using that information to refute another poster's claims that they had too talked to company reps.”
I guess you have missed my reply where I refute he claims that the company gave him the information:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=144831962
But then who or how was it verified Major's getting calls?
There is no indication this is mere speculation.
Again is the poster's random opinion that PT is headed down to the mine site?
but the main point of is I mistakenly took the posters response as fact instead of opinion
Would love to hear other's take on what is being said here. Are we talking about the current, past or future?
Sounds to me? That phrase usually infers a conversation took place where something was heard.
yet somehow you've been given info on how long they will be on site and that they will be done prior early Dec
“Decoder rings and Ouija boards......appropriate for a penny stock like Mexus.”
I bought those from some folks who predicted the toxic death spiral. I guess they didn’t need them anymore.
“Besides, how would I ever prove that I had called?”
I will read it on my Ouija board.
Call them and ask. I would love to read the answer you’ll get here.
Did I miss the answer to this question?
“Called them, and emailed them. They verified that they won't comment on ANY ongoing project they have. So go ahead, tell us all about your conversation! “
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=144727299
I think I get it "interesting information which is irrelevant to mexus" means "not interesting information because it's fake in your opinion, and irrelevant to everybody?"
I think I need a decoder ring to read these posts.
First you say "That's all interesting info on the 43-101 process" about a posts that says "43-101 instruments are used all over the world, not just canada."
Then you say the post is irrelevant to mexus including the part about "43-101 instruments are used all over the world, not just canada"
How does that "Interesting but irrelevant info" match with the claim you make "Mexus simply will not be able to claim they have 43-101 compliant report, unless they somehow become dual-traded on a Canadian exchange"
Why is it interesting info and relevant to other companies outside Canada and not to mexus?
“I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. Now who's moving the goal post? “
I don’t, geigerbutte said it was possible, and you replied it’s irrelevant to mexus
“It is irrelevant because Mexus cannot commission a 43-101 report. “
I don’t read that here:
“That's all interesting info on the 43-101 process....but completely irrelevant to Mexus.”
But I did read: “43-101 instruments are used all over the world, not just canada.”
So yes, if suddenly it goes from making a point of it “not being possible” to “irrelevant it is possible” it’s moving the goalposts.
“That's all interesting info on the 43-101 process....but completely irrelevant to Mexus.”
Did I just see the goalposts move from Mexus can not have a 43-101 report, to it’s irrelevant????
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=127301968
100 shares traded today... woow thought I would never see this trade again!
No sorry, got a link? I’m not finding it here.
I think that if some call, the chance is likely that Mexus will say that the first holes they drill are being used to put in the goal posts, and fix them. So that they can’t move them around anymore LOL