You see what you want to see. Im seeing what's actually there.
Now to each of your points.
"A grant does generally provide "money" for use as stipulated. The details of the administration of a grant will vary but it does result in the purchase of goods that would otherwise have to be paid for from another source. I don't see how parsing that point is constructive to the argument."
You original post said Gemini got the the Government of Columbia to give them "money" AND "equipment". That is completely wrong. The PR said it was a grant of equipment. For all we know, that could be a shovel, pick and hammer. It's very suspicious that no numbers were given. If it's a substantial grant, why not say so? When I asked Shawn about this he said that equipment in Columbia is cheaper than from USA or Canada.
But the main equipment is coming from Canada, so whatever they got from Columbia is very suspect IMO because they aren't giving a PR, photos or paperwork. Government grants are done through public documents, so why no explanation?
"I've expressed my beliefs and knowledge to my best ability here and have been, I believe, respectful of you and your arguments..."
No, I don't think you have been respectful. I don't expect respect, I expect a fight. Reading the implications of your post, you are trying to make readers think that I didn't accurately post what happened between Shawn and I on the phone, that in some way I misunderstood and that there is a possibility that there was a "backlog" at Expectorate which caused the delay of sample results. And that is not true.
"after all you do have a valid point in this discussion. It's really not necessary for you to support your point by impugning my judgement and accusing me of purposely making misleading statements!"
I said you were making "misleading" statements, I never said you were doing so on purpose, readers can decide that for themselves. And in mscharacterizing my statements, you're the one who is being disrespectful.
You might be making misleading statements because you've been misled, regardless, the statements I have spoken of ARE in fact misleading and if you've done the DD necessary to prove up what I'm saying you'd know that. I don't accuse you of making these misleading statements with malicious intent. I have no way of knowing that, but I was calling out your "comments" not your "motives". I have never used the word "pumper" or any synonyms with respect to your posts.
"That kind of language says more about you than it does about me. I don't really mind having my intelligence or knowledge called into question, but never, never question my integrity! That is far beyond the bounds of civil discourse."
No, you're the one who has mis-characterized my statements. Your statements WERE misleading. Your "motives" are completely irrelevant to me and I have NOT commented thereon.
"The real question is, does this one circumstance warrant the trashing of the company's reputation and the calling into question of Mike Hill's overall integrity?"
Yes, it absolutely does. This is how you make people be honest. As investors, we are what we eat, not what we are fed. I don't eat crap. If you want to give a pass, go ahead. Not me. My faith and money must be earned.
"If Mike Hill is stalling with regard to the sample report, what's his motive? Why would he stall except to obtain a positive result in support of the attainment of the ultimate goal?"
Exactly. If the samples are crap, he has motive to stall until they find better ones.
"If someone could show me how this "stalling" would very seriously benefit management while, at the same time, bring great injury to shareholders, you've got my attention."
The injury is that if the samples are crap, then what are the shares worth? Buying time gives them time, but it doesn't give shareholders accurate information to invest upon. When we are promised something, we ought to get what we are promised. If the samples are no good, than tell us that and earn our faith. Tell us you are doing more tests and be upfront.
"I, personally just can't see anything in the rest of the company's public history that justifies a "worst case" set of assumptions based on the issue in question."
One bad apple does spoil the whole bunch for me. It's a matter of what you are willing to overlook. Liars lie. One lie is all I need to get the hell out of dodge. I'd rather look up a company that hasn't lied to me, than invest in one that has.
"Let everyone draw their own conclusions."
Agreed.
