In reponse to rapidrob...
posted on
Sep 30, 2008 08:29AM
NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)
Nobody has said that only pure geology belongs on the main board - let's not take things to extremes to make our arguments. I am proposing we stick to the rules, and you are trying to make things political.
Furthermore, the issue is not about disagreement or debate of the thoughts/ ideas expressed in the posts - you are missing the point. Nobody is proposing that debate be limited, or that we exclude opinions. Again you are making 'straw men' to to put forth your argument.
Things that I believe are what AG finds acceptable for the main board:
This is not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea.
Anything that is relevant to everything, such as the US econmic bailout, or is not in anyway significantly relevant to the above list, probably does not belong on the main board. I think the matter is fairly straightforward actually, I don't see the reason for all the fuss and contoversy. Again. we do not make the rules.
Posted by: rapidrob on September 30, 2008 11:40AM
In response to: coswil and 'off-topic' post... by Bentonstocks
There is an "Elephant in the room" for many respected posters and Agoracom needs to address it. That elephant is the recent propensity to want to relegate anything other than pure geology to the Off-Topic board. Essentially, that reduces all non-geos to second class citizens, at a time when there are many pros who can make valuable "handholding" contributions to the Board. When these folks don't feel appreciated, they simply vote with their feet, rather than appear to be political venters or prima donnas on the OT forum. While posts about the relevant general economy, for example, need to be related by their authors to NOT's situation (if it not self-evident) those posts can be quite valuable to shareholders comfort if they are objective and properly crafted. For example, a debate over whether the US will ultimately opt for extremely low growth/isolationism or whether they look to slightly higher growth/inflation/trade levels is key to whether NOT will have the economic backdrop for a viable business model in the next several years. If you do not like this post, please do not criticize it, just send it to the Chief Equity Strategist at your advisor/broker and ask him if it is relevant to your nest egg (NOT). Without this broader debate, we can really get sucked in by being too close to micro value details.