InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 1
Posts 1134
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 12/29/2016

Re: 8thaero post# 41465

Tuesday, 03/23/2021 9:11:01 AM

Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:11:01 AM

Post# of 47639

Sorta gotcha long last. 8



Aw shucks... guess you got me there... except, can you find any posts where I denied the test mining exemption existed? Oooops...

At this point one must ask themselves, why would someone keep going back to the ol "test mining exemption does exist" chestnut? The answer - To continue deflecting for a fib told by the company.

Can you show me in which 10-k or 10-q Mexus reported the $26,841 of gold sales the company stated occurred in its March 19, 2018 PR?

It should have been reflected in either the next 10-K or 10-Q, but nothing was reported. When it was pointed out no revenue was listed, it was at that time the test miner exemption idea was floated as a CYA. (because historically Mexus had always reported gold sales as revenue in its 10-k and 10-q filings so this was a way to pretend the sales did exist even though it wasn't in the 10-k.)

Of course it was then pointed out nothing was listed in either revenue or as an offset of exploration expenses, but that didn't keep folks from doubling down on covering Mexus' misleading, possibly even fraudulent, PR of gold sales.

Instead, the narrative changed to Mexus can't claim gold sales as revenue beasue it doesn't have reserves. Once that myth was debunked and it was clearly established that gold sales could be reported as either revenue or offset of expenses, the narrative changed to claiming victory over the basement dwellers because people finally admit test mining exemption existed (even though nobody ever denied it existed).

The end result was an attempt to take all eyes off Mexus' March 19, 2018 PR claiming gold sales that never materialized on the financials.

The test mining expemtion isn't the issue. It never was. Heck it was never contested. It was seen for what it was. A cover-up excuse for Mexus deceptive PR about gold sales.