Well, let's try this one more time. Don't really like going back & forth, but I feel I need to reply to GF's reply to me.

GF, here are some of the points you posted & bolded, underlined, etc:

"As most assays of samples taken from Tesoro have shown minimal non-gold content, it is our opinion that high gold sulphides are the most likely and predominant metal producing the IP results."

"St. Elias has provided extensive assay results from surface and underground sampling and suprisingly small amounts of non-gold metal are present. This increases the likelihood that the Titan 24 results are more likely to be derived from gold sulfides (and visible gold), rather than other metals normally associated with gold zones (i.e. copper, silver) if the drilling targets have similiar characterisitics."
Read more at http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/v.sli/st-elias-mines-ltd?postid=21848827#vj2vUuteDyvt2vyi.99

So, now for my point:

So yes, that's all good, somewhat a contradiction, I believe, to what you're trying to say? It's like you're saying the same thing we are, somewhat by mistake? Those are very good & appropriate sentences that you chose to Cut & Paste.

However, why did you not bold & underline all the words: (Is this not the point we're trying to make, how else do you read it?? These are your examples, just bolded by me. What do these sentences tell investors? Should we once again, not believe it?)

"As most assays of samples taken from Tesoro have shown minimal non-gold content, it is our opinion that high gold sulphides are the most likely and predominant metal producing the IP results.

"St. Elias has provided extensive assay results from surface and underground sampling and suprisingly small amounts of non-gold metal are present. This increases the likelihood that the Titan 24 results are more likely to be derived from gold sulfides (and visible gold), rather than other metals normally associated with gold zones (i.e. copper, silver)"