The problem with your posts are that I'm rarely left informed after reading them. Your posts are vague and nondescript. You comment on communications with various officials, seldom mentioning names, on points that don't seem to have focus or specific intent.

"This will take TIME so if anyone is expecting an earth shattering news release next week regarding Windfall, I wouldn't hold my breath."

We already know this as I have already posted my conversation with N.N. as to timelines for this.

"Maybe they will say "hey, we've got a lot of gold down there" however, without an assay, it won't mean a lot. Would go over like the previous "visual gold" announcement."

Again, we already know this with visual gold already having been reported in an N.R.. Therefore it would be nothing new to report.

"NOT is very excited to reach the zone and a comment was made that in certain areas that they would have expected mineralization, there was none, and in other areas, they encountered "interesting" results."

What areas are we talking about here. This doesn't sound like the language I get when I speak to them. Who were you talking to? Credibility comes with accuracy. Your work is too vague to demonstrate accuracy or even the style of comment that comes out of the office. That's just how I see it. The problem with your posts is that you don't simply report, you colour your work with negativity or rather a pessimistic tone regardless of the fine work the company is doing. There is a difference between an objective report and one that clearly shows a subjective slant.