Anyways, I'm not here to defend Vette and his actions, but his blog was a very useful site to promote (not pump) Copper Fox and Schaft Creek. Please give me one comment in his blog that has anything that is either false or misleading?

=========================

The complete disregard for anything negative. Everything was 100% positive, no negative risk, a slam dunk. I don't remember for sure, but wasn't there someone brandishing a couple hundred dollar SP at one time?

Ignoring all negative aspects is misleading in my books. There are strengths and risks to any investment. One sided is misleading, no?

=========================

I love it when anyone who's slightly positive about SC is pumping. Remember, pumping is when you post false information or trying to mislead people with positive information for profit.

=========================

Likely the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think there is no harm in exploring both the positive and negative sides to this.

If someone refuses to accept anything negative could be happening - in my books, I would call that pumping.

Conversely, if someone cant accept that there are positive things happening - that would be bashing in my books too. Just my definition, though.

=========================

...as a fellow shareholder, I'm surprised you're comfortable in reading comments from other posters who make claims such as Elmer lied to me, there was no fog, we put $80 million for $20 million only, Elmer committed fraud, FS was never delivered....

All these statements has no facts or proof to support it.

=========================

It is hard to prove anything here with the information we are given. That said, it isn't as cut and dried as you infer...

• Elmer lied to me - CanadaGrant was (is in my books) a respected long time poster/shareholder. He spent his own money flying over the project several times, and seems to be an honest, straight shooter. He had a face-to-face conversation with Elmer, and he recorded the conversation. Are you accusing Grant of an outright lie? What would be his motive? Not proof, but supported?
  
  
• There was no fog - Once again, Grant flew over in short sleeves and Environment Canada's weather website (which shows historical weather) confirmed weather was normal for that time of year. He asked rock drillers face-to-face if they can drill in fog, and they responded with an emphatic yes. Kinda facts and proof?
  
  
• we put $80 million for $20 million only - It could be argued that IF a production decision is not made this IS fact. Time will tell here, hopefully not fact...
  
  
• Elmer committed fraud - no facts or proof to support that.
• FS was never delivered - well, the Salazar did specify that the "feasibility notice" was the document required to deliver the BFS contractually. That IS fact. It is in the agreement in plain language - take a look. Giving the BFS to Teck without the Feasibility Notice is not delivering it as per contract.
  
  Did they deliver it with the required notice? We don't know for sure, but when asked specifically about it the answer was avoided. If anyone has been able to get an answer on this specific topic from management (ie: did the Feasibility Notice get delivered with the BFS) please share this with us and we can put this to bed. I can only wonder why this answer is so hard to get answered?
  
  The BFS contractually delivered would have started the 120 day clock, we would have earned 100% interest in the property and all Teck's Liard shares were to be transferred to us. Questions, and more questions there... This topic has been dismissed here, but that doesn't disprove it without any evidence. Group-think yes, proof or facts - none that I have seen, anyways.
  
  What facts or proof do you have that it was delivered as per contract? You are talking about facts and proof in your original post - that goes both ways? I would love to put this issue to rest. If you can shed some light here, please do.