can this continue?, page-24

draganfly

are you telling me that if you take 50 readings of the core over a 6 metre interval and take an arithmetic average that this would not give an 'indication' of the grade? or plit the results between massive/matirx/disseminated and reported each?

and if this information is available why not announce it with the description of the mineralisation (in this case massive).

some companies are already doing this - for example RXL with their first 6 holes!! western areas, to name a couple.

and given your opinion, no company should be announcing rock chip results at all as they are the most spurious, distorted exploration results one can offer....?

and if indeed RXLs run over the past few days has been indeed been caused by leakage of XRF results (and in my view there is some chance of this), then where is the market balance in that?

there is another issue and that is that the XRF technology is only recently becoming a common industry tool. report these results is no different to the accuracy of report soil geochmistry, geophysical results, etc etc the list goes on. It just has to be done the correct amount of technical support and advice on level of accuracy.

My view is that if a company has these results and are not releasing them then they are not meeting market disclosure requirements.

so... I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

I am interested in your return comment.

gosouth