Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:02:18 AM
Your is incorrect.
The company has the right approach... and that's why progress has occurred, in spite of deals being discussed not getting done... even though the company would clearly prefer the deals get done, and have persistently worked toward enabling that to happen.
There's no rocket science involved in that... and its not some unique bit of brilliance in strategy that is exclusive to SRSR and SRSR management, that has them doing what they have been.
That's exactly what exploration companies are SUPPOSED to do...
Every "failed deal" has resulted in others funding improvements in SRSR's position... in a pattern that persists and has SRSR improving its position through that pattern in "failure"...
It's not some random fluke that SRSR "got lucky" and turned HKHE's failure to complete the deal THAT HKHE WANTED TO COMPLETE into an improvement in SRSR's position ?
In exploration, the price of admission to participating in the discussion about doing a deal... is funding advancement of the projects...
If the deal doesn't happen... the project was still advanced in spite of that...
Progress is made whether the deal gets done or not...
So, its simply a choice to be myopic to claim that progress that is occurring... the proof of which is undeniable... isn't progress because it's not enough for you... ?
The company would still rather take bigger steps sooner, than advance the projects in a series of smaller steps... which doesn't mean progress that is occurring isn't progress ?
Why anyone would find that confusing is beyond me...
Yes, the deal they're discussing doing now is VASTLY BETTER than deals they'd discussed doing earlier... that didn't get done. The reason for that isn't luck... it is that the price of admission paid by those who were participating in trying to make those earlier deals happen... generated improvements in SRSR's position...
The error addressed in our exchange... isn't my error in noting that there is value in the company's approach... applying tried and true methods in advancing an exploration project.
The error is yours... in claiming that the pattern the entire mineral exploration industry is based upon... reflects "dumb luck" rather than purpose in the design when it works exactly the way it is supposed to...
The company has the right approach... and that's why progress has occurred, in spite of deals being discussed not getting done... even though the company would clearly prefer the deals get done, and have persistently worked toward enabling that to happen.
There's no rocket science involved in that... and its not some unique bit of brilliance in strategy that is exclusive to SRSR and SRSR management, that has them doing what they have been.
That's exactly what exploration companies are SUPPOSED to do...
Every "failed deal" has resulted in others funding improvements in SRSR's position... in a pattern that persists and has SRSR improving its position through that pattern in "failure"...
It's not some random fluke that SRSR "got lucky" and turned HKHE's failure to complete the deal THAT HKHE WANTED TO COMPLETE into an improvement in SRSR's position ?
In exploration, the price of admission to participating in the discussion about doing a deal... is funding advancement of the projects...
If the deal doesn't happen... the project was still advanced in spite of that...
Progress is made whether the deal gets done or not...
So, its simply a choice to be myopic to claim that progress that is occurring... the proof of which is undeniable... isn't progress because it's not enough for you... ?
The company would still rather take bigger steps sooner, than advance the projects in a series of smaller steps... which doesn't mean progress that is occurring isn't progress ?
Why anyone would find that confusing is beyond me...
Yes, the deal they're discussing doing now is VASTLY BETTER than deals they'd discussed doing earlier... that didn't get done. The reason for that isn't luck... it is that the price of admission paid by those who were participating in trying to make those earlier deals happen... generated improvements in SRSR's position...
The error addressed in our exchange... isn't my error in noting that there is value in the company's approach... applying tried and true methods in advancing an exploration project.
The error is yours... in claiming that the pattern the entire mineral exploration industry is based upon... reflects "dumb luck" rather than purpose in the design when it works exactly the way it is supposed to...
