InvestorsHub Logo

Argyll

06/15/04 8:13 PM

#29287 RE: janice shell #29284

Harmagony --

Wasn't that a movie with Diana Ross?

BHB

06/15/04 8:17 PM

#29292 RE: janice shell #29284

To confirm or deny the existence of diamonds, NOT to assess economic viability.


Churak

06/15/04 8:20 PM

#29294 RE: janice shell #29284

I've got a harmagony coffee table

Admiral The X

06/15/04 8:20 PM

#29295 RE: janice shell #29284

homogeneous sorry... i'm a horrible speller

thought homogeny might be the what ever what ever part of speach for homogenous.. but its not.

i was typing as if speaking.. which is often a bad move.

ho·mo·ge·ne·ous
adj.
Uniform in structure or composition throughout.

to much internet, not enough spelling-be... i too am guilty of being a semi-stupid american. so when i insult everyone, i insult myself.

LuckMuncher

06/15/04 9:12 PM

#29363 RE: janice shell #29284

the absolute truth in sampling:

one sample does not mean diddly. two samples do not mean diddly. three samples do not mean diddly. 100 samples don't mean diddly. 4 million samples can still be misleading, or flat out wrong...

only if proper techniques are used to sample a significantly diverse amount of the 'universe' can one get trustworthy results worth extrapolation.

now that i know what's going on (only .001g of diamonds found), i can only say that it is meaningless. i started my career as a microbiologist by counting bacteria in clean rooms, and trust me, the sampling to date counts for squat. granted, there are diamonds in them hills, but are there enough for us to retire on??? the only way to find out is to keep drilling and keep sampling.

talk to me after diamonds are found in every sample out of the first 30 or more...

is it really posted somewhere that our sample is from a hole that was previously drilled??? and did they find diamonds before as well? that would be a sham and a half. and i'd think that would call for all involved securities to be halted instantly!!!

best of luck!!!