Mr. Hoover, you are a gentleman and a scholar. I aspire to be both one day.
Incidentally, my use of the words "spar" and "nice hat" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I have no desire to fight, but to hone my interpretive and investing skills, and those of others. Like a boxer with his trainer. They like and respect each other, but they certainly don't get into the ring for a kissing match.

Regarding the question at hand, I enjoyed reading your thoughts. If your recollections of the trench area are accurate, then it is certainly plausible that no rich mineralization is exposed at surface, but is abundant below the surface. I will have to look more closely at the published drill hole assays for the zone to convince myself. If you could further confirm what you now just "suspect", that would be appreciated.

Further, if your observations are true, I guess I am still somewhat mystified at why they felt the need to trench poorly mineralized bedrock not just once but four times. What did they expect to achieve? Again, I am not a geologist by any stretch of the imagination. Just seeking reasons.

To me, it would seem plausible that, if this is a single emplacement event, the grade should be somewhat consistent and predictable throughout. Nonetheless, it certainly appeared that some of the empirical evidence suggested otherwise. That is why I brought the subject up.

This has been a good conversation, friends. I hope it keeps going. Not just on this aspect, but many others which will undoubtedly come up as we see this interesting project develop. Remember, a little bit of healthy skepticism is good. Even playing Devil's advocate is good. It's what will help keep some money in our pocket as we navigate through this turbulent investment climate.

And Glorieux, I still like you too.