E86 and earm., I respect your views.....basically I respect the views of all other posters irrespective of which way their views trend in relation to mine, it they present those views in an even handed, respectful way, as I try to do. I do try to put forward my point of view, if I feel it may do some good, or avoid some harm, but I am always careful to avoid use of words which may be hurtful to, or antagonize, other posters. I feel we are fortunate to have this forum to exchange views, and should therefore take care, and be careful - given we are invisible here - not to be abrasive to our fellow posters. Both of you have been very fair and even handed in your comments...I thank you for that, and that is why I respect your views.
E86 - you asked my views of the assets of the company....I imagine you mean the exploration areas, and if so, to my non-expert eye (geologically speaking) they seem fairly typical greenfields prospects, albeit with very limited work done on them so far, and hopefully they may turn out well. My reservation is that they are heavily overpriced (the option though is okay, as I said before...immaterial
really) , but I could go on and on about that again, and annoy some posters, so I won't, as it is only my opinion, and we all know what Clint Eastwood said about opinions.
At the end of the day we all just want to see an improved SP, and so far the SP has told a very negative story...tax loss selling or whatever, you don't see a collapse like this without a strong fundamental reason.
I have not changed mv view that the terms of the proposed agreement should be modified, if it goes ahead at all. The SP will probably improve in time, lets hope it does, and as I and my family are quite heavily invested, I will be the first to cheer. Down ramping is not my go, but I reserve the right to comment on an agreement/proposal which to me is lopsided and unfair.
Good luck to all.
SI6 Price at posting:
1.1¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
