Replies to post #63018 on Colorado Goldfields Inc. (fka CGFI)

[akgoldminor]

Nice that this is a penny stock message board. Good thing you're not a lawyer. That rebuttal would get you laughed out of court. IMO, of course.

Getting harder every day to read your posts. Lucidity issues, you know. It's got to be hard to remember what alias to use depending on which board you are on. The scripts you use are actually pretty good though, and unfortunately work some of the time in deterring potential investors.

Se la vie.

$CGFI

[sem1]

Yes I do, and a cord too. Do you have a match I can borow ? :-)

[modrica]

what you just said does not make sense whatsoever

you should definitely read it twice before you post it


but dont worry , not making sense is not a crime


git life


imo

gl

[M_T_Pockets]

And which "state regulatory agency" would that be? Surely if you spoke to someone at an agency, you would be able to tell us which one it was!

"Investers"? I hate to be the one to tell you this, but "there ain't no such thing"!!

Like the meaningless word you use, the majority of the claims asserted in your post, factually are just erroneous.

Logic seems to be lacking in the train of thought also. A "fully functioning" mine or mill would, by definition already have permitting. If it didn't, then it would not be "fully functioning" at anything, by law.

That's what one gets when only doing 20 minutes of DD and jumping to conclusions.
We have had professionals who work in the mining industry post information about the average length of time it takes to permit and start up a mine or mill. They directly contradict your post's claim. A bit more research would seem to be necessary.

So what "state regulatory agency" was it that gave you this data?
I'll wait for a reply.
CGFI