Posted by Oryx and deleted;

John- I agree with some, but not all of your post.

I generally agree with your comments on investment strategy. We (at least the ones who own shares) are all here to make money. There's no reason to criticize anyone who takes profits off the table, or has a core holding and trades the rest. Some of us are traders, some are long term investors, some employ a combination strategy. And those of us who are invested are the ones most interested in truthful and reliable information.

As far as posts on this board affecting the price, I suggest you go back and look at the action a while ago when someone posted (falsely) that SFMI would not be able to make their first payment to GHDC. The sp took an almost immediate plunge. It doesn't require all 3800 shareholders selling to affect the price. A few hundred thousand shares dumped at market by just one or a few holders will trigger a cascade of selling including triggering stop losses. That is one of the reasons that I and others react to false and misleading posts so decisively, or as you might feel, harshly.

The "extremes" you talk about are hardly just opposite ends of a spectrum, but fundamentally different. The "positive" posts here are generally pretty objective, and deal mostly with facts and reliable information, and logical and reasonable speculation. They sometimes are a bit enthusiastic, and rightly so- but rarely if ever intentionally misleading or wrong. The "negative" posts often contradict reliable information, twist things around, or just blatantly lie and make stuff up (the ore is limestone, the ore piles are mostly waste, dirt, and overburden, snow will shut down SFMI's operations in winter). You mentioned one important fact- the negative posters own little or no stock. Do you think they might have a fundamentally different reason for posting? I as an investor want as much accurate information as I can get, whether it's positive or negative. What does a non-shareholder want, and what is their purpose in posting?

As far as

Quote: We all believe there is lots of gold and silver on the ground and in the mountain but we have no proof from the company as of today, only historical data and few test assays.

I would go a bit farther and say that the historical data combined with recent assays and reports (not just a few by the way) are pretty overwhelming in demonstrating that War Eagle Mountain holds incredible resources. We don't know yet exactly how much but surely enough to make SFMI wildly profitable- even just the ore piles will do that.

As far as the shareholders meeting, I'm not better or worse than you because I went, or just "poorer" (I consider the money well spent), but I am better qualified to comment on what we saw and learned at the meeting and on the tours. Your comment that "The fact is the news from the meeting was so bad" flies in the face of what everyone at the meeting felt about what they learned. Yes, the production rate was not what we were expecting, but we also found out why, and that SFMI is working hard to increase production (NOT waiting until May, as someone who didn't go to the meeting falsely reported). We saw a solid operation that has accomplished an incredible amount, and that extends beyond the impressive accomplishment of constructing a mill and getting to production to fixing and improving roads, working on mine sites, and working on reopening the mines. Plus other work going on that we couldn't directly observe. Anyone who sold immediately after the SHM was not selling on the positive impression that attendees got and reported, but on panic caused by misunderstanding the importance and implications of one number that didn't meet expectations, not understanding the reasons, and not knowing the efforts underway to increase that number to levels even higher than previously reported. I also readily acknowledge that better and earlier information from SFMI could have prevented the disappointment- I'm not a pumper- I'm an investor who wants good info as much as you do. As I've said before, if you didn't go to the meeting, you can either believe our reports from the meeting or not- but unless you have better information don't try to imply that our impressions from what we saw and heard and learned are wrong. The fact that you think the "news...was so bad" while the people who attended were uniformly positive says a lot about the value of getting your information first hand rather than from a message board.

End of post

Doesn't seem off topic, and it's not an attack. Anyone have an idea as to why it would be deleted?