You misquote again. JB did not say there was any more than indications that required more research, whether REE;s, copper, precious metals, etc. I do not see that as "promotion". We can understand that clearly, why not you? That is hardly blind devotion to wait for scientific analyses. The Department of Defense does not think REE's are passe'... Like the rest of Hay Mountain resources or any other company's mining communications, indications get proven step by step until official by SEC standards. To have such information and not divulge them may be just as wrong. I do not
It IS one good purpose of this board to get information from official or original sources about the operation in question. The SEC, etc defines appropriate levels of confidence or accuracy required in order to issue a NR, PR or discuss before governments. Aspersions have been thrown as dirt here... so again, have YOU ASKED LBSR HQ in writing for such information that you claim is needed to show Jim Briscoe wrong? Do your own DD at the right source. My DD understands that corporations have valid privacy reasons for not telling the world all of its detailed plans and research results upon demand... that is unwise in a selfish society. Lack of information does not prove a point...only valid evidence does. So let us give LBSR the appropriate time to reveal all that is needed for investors. Our investor information demands are often slanted.
Do you think the whole project is invalid because of your viewpoint? Fine, do not invest then. But I prefer to see no more psychological games of slanting questions to control the conversation to get a pre-determined conclusion.
