Joe,

I think you should reread my posts...

I express no fundamental or even mild disagreement or dispute with anything that is the NRs.

What I dispute is the the originality or value of JD's interpretation and understanding, and its limited or segmented nature intended to only support his (newest?) thoughts...

I beleive in the information thats is in the NRs, therefore, logically, I must in some way support JD's reguritation of them. Where I dispute JD, and not the NRs, is in his limited interpretation or spin on what the latest evidence of E2 does to the potential of the E1 region - JD states nothing new or original, and there is still alot to be understood aboit what is happening the vicinity of E1.

NOT clearly stated in their NR that E1 exists WITHIN a conduit feeder, I would know like to know where the rest of the conduit is, where it goes, and where it comes from, just I am sure most people do. In addition, as you mention in your post, E1 seems to be sheared off to the south, and therefore we should be wondering if E1 is not part of larger sulphide-PGE pool that as been broken up by later geological events.

It appears to me you have seriously misunderstood something in my posts.

Regards,

B.