Ann: Trading Halt, page-162

What a dumbo you are - must be good stuff you are smoking. You claimed the pegmatite with the 13 metre intersection pinched out by linking that to other drill intersections to various depths along strike . Now you admit they are separate pegmatites. Make up your mind-
Given none of these holes have been twinned you have no evidence whatsoever they pinched out as you claim. You are grasping at straws -simply because they mentioned one pegmatite was about 20 metres at surface and the down hole intersection was 13 metres as I recall you have tried to build your case around that particular pegmatite. The 20 metres at surface in a very weathered outcrop would be an estimate only and even it was in fact 20 metres the 13 metre intersection may well be much wider at depth. You can't seem to understand despite my posting of a number of maps that pegmatites pinch and swell and deviate and noone least of all a story teller like you can speculate what the geometry will be at depth.
Go back over your posts - the more you try to expand on your cock and bull story the bigger hole you dig for yourself. I will put you on ignore soon -when I have destroyed your argument that the initial drill results from SGQ hundreds of metres apart pinched out when none of the holes have been twinned and noone yet knows the geometry laterally or at depth.
Before you make a bigger fool of yourself have another look at the cross sections I posted. See how pegmatites with a wide surface expression suddenly deviate at a shallow depth. Then study their spatial relationship - incredibly complex widths and orientation. Then study all the pegmatites that produce results with wildcat holes -thin pegmatites -WITH NO SURFACE EXPRESSION. So much for your 'pinched out ' theory -

And you have the gall to come on here and post misleading statements - the man with Xray eyes and an imagination bigger than Ben Hur.