I have some questions,

..Are we burning through our 20000m of drilling looking for the source of the anomolies, or are we looking at what is in the anomolies themselves?..more importantly "the big one"? If I am misunderstanding the difference between the anomolies and the source of the anomolies could somebody please clue me in? I was under the impression the source is what fed all of those in the immediate area.. I'm down a whole pile like the rest of us and want to understand what I'm looking at. With the amazing grades from the past, something doesnt seem quite right. Did I miss something? I have not heard Lori say she hasn't found the anomolies ..just that she hasn't found the source of the anomolies... I'd like to know whats in the big one itself not what's on the way (hopefully) to what they think might be the location of the source of it..Could that change the likelyhood of intercepting grades such as in the a4 or c1 adits? Any opinions from both sides of the fence are welcome. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks because not until Calgary did Lori start mentioning they hadnt found the "causitive source" with the drilling to date.. It was always about he big anomoly from what I was to understand until all this source talk started. The source was considered the icing on the cake. And again in this NR the causitive source is mentioned.. "Drilling to date has not explained the causitive source of the geophysical anomolies reported by quantec". Seems to me what we thought was the plan may not be the plan. Seems to me finding the source has become the priority. Not proving up the anomolies. Why havent we gone to any decent depth directly into the big pink and red dream. What happened to 1000m drill capabilities with one of the two drills on site?