I have just a few minutes this morning.

Glorieux, it is true I am not a frequent poster. I will step in and say something when I notice that there are important points that are just not getting discussed. I am happy to be proven wrong.

You are right. Something about this is not right. I contend that the "bad optics" lie not with me, but with the reported results. Brad's comments are reassuring. I will examine them more closely this evening when I have time. However, nothing of what either you or he have said really touch on the germaine issue: All four trenches cut across T2 zone have returned less than stellar results. I have difficulty believing that the first 2, done under different management I believe, would have been chosen to cross poor mineralization. And even if they were, why would the last 2 (done in 2009) be chosen the same way?

Why does the conversation always return to T1? I like T1. Who wouldn't? The historical assay results are mostly good, and mostly T1. I believe T2 was a much later discovery, made by Golden Hope. I'm looking for confirmation that these additional zones deserve the same stamp of approval.

I am not insinuating that there are ethical issues on the part of the company. But at the same time you are asking me to blindly trust every affirmation they might make. Unfavorable results are sometimes not well published or are otherwise sanitized for our consumption. Maybe it is because a company, acting like a protecting big brother, does not want us to eat things that might harm us, I don't know. But let's not pretend the results are not there. They are. Let's analyze them like grown-ups.

Sincerely

Johnny