And like I was saying, which was supported by the detailed the claims list I produced, nothing BMK owns is adjacent (look-up 'adjacent' in the dictionary if you are not sure what it means) to the discovery claim, i.e., nothing BMK owns is next to NOT's discovery as people were claiming. 1 to 2 miles aways is not 'next to'. In fact BMK owns no claims withing the immediate vicinty of the discovery - within 1 or 2 claims distance.

It is certainly good for BMK that they have so much land tied-up as their chances of success finding other deposits in what hopefully proves to actually be a "ring of fire", so to speak, will be much greater. I think BMK offers good potenetial as side play... better than most of the other companies in the area.

Nobody ever said that BMK was not staking claims adjacent to some of NOT's claims - for the record - just not the discovery claim (next to the discovery).

Therefore, what I and others stated in this regard remains true and correct, and the status of EXISTING claims that were on the official government map at any time in the recent past has been correct, contrary to what was claimed by some.

Finally, jondefur, I remain open to accepting an apology for the uncalled for personal attack you posted last week in regards to this matter, that was not within the friendly spirit and standard of posting on this board that many of us, who have been for here along time, have been working hard to maintain and uphold.

Regards,

B.