Seems we have some discussion/debate about these two stocks. I think drawing comparisons is futile, but believe the reason NOT and ZEN seem to be coupled together is two fold. First off, they are similar in the fact that they both had amazing discoveries. Second and more importantly, is the fact that I think many of the retail holders of these stocks own both NOT and ZEN, or have at least owned both stocks at one point in time. Many sold NOT to buy ZEN, now some are flipping back. This is fair game and quite common. Seems the plan was to sell NOT down the river, buy ZEN, ride the wave up, then load back up on NOT at depressed levels. Now that NOT is running and ZEN is trading sideways for the most part, people are concerned whether they'll actually get back in NOT before it explodes (and it will). This concern is warranted. What isn't warranted is pumping a stock to unload it, and bashing a stock to accumulate it. It's also illegal. I sincerely hope this isn't happening.

If anyone wants to sell a dog to buy a rising star, you're more than entitled to do so, and in the case of ZEN a year ago, it was the RIGHT MOVE. So hats off to glorieux and others for recognizing the opportunity. I didn't get in on this because I felt Noront was at or close to bottom. As such, I ended up with a crap load of cash shares at an average of .26 cents and even some rrsp shares at .24 cents. I haven't made the money others did by flipping to ZEN.................yet. However, I am very comfortable with my decision. I also didn't bash ZEN or tell others it was a stupid move. Many have come here stating they are just "helping investors" here by warning us at how stupid we are to hold NOT rather then ZEN. To me a simple heads up would have been suffice, but hey, that's just me.

Instead these people pointed out the glaring issues with NOT, all the while comparing it to ZEN. Don't get me wrong, the ZEN story was very compelling a year ago, and still is to some extent. That's not my point though. My point is simple, why not just a heads up? Why go in to all the details? Why talk about the lack of infrastructure? Why talk about the first nations? Why talk about share structure? Why talk about all the things we all know about? Why call it dead money? What are they gaining by doing this? Is it really helping Noront share holders to hear that they're on dead money? Or could it be they wanted NOT to stay down or go lower so they could take another run at it later? Who knows, you tell me the motive. I do not doubt that this likely wasn't as sinister as it sounds, but if one takes a long hard look at what they're doing they'll probably realize that they, for whatever reason, justified in their mind that it is ok to hope and dream for the demise of one stock, all to trigger the rise of another. In my mind, that isn't ok, and never will be. What's worse though, is what's now happening. Noront, to no ones surprise is running and folks that flipped to ZEN are now worried about missing the boat, or at least worried about not getting in at rock bottom prices. Well duh? This is what happens when you play that fine line, you rarely sell the exact top on one, and buy the exact bottom on the other. The timing/luck never works out that perfectly. Most people know this and expect it, but some get greedy.

But anyone who flipped out of NOT for ZEN a year ago has made a ton of money, hats off, I wish I had done the same till late July/early august and then flipped back to NOT. I didn't because I was worried about the exact timing (how was I to know July/august would be the exact time to buy?) and missing the inevitable Noront run. I think in the end both decisions will likely be similar in overall investment returns. I'm happy with the path I took because i've been burnt trying to time things before. If you've made a boat load on ZEN because of the flip, great. Don't be sour because your plan to ride ZEN to the moon and buy NOT back in the 20s didn't work. You can still buy NOT at .40 cents, which is one heck of a deal. Consider it the cost of not sitting on "dead money".

I now see share predictions of $5000 a share and comparisons of NOT and ZEN and at how inferior NOT is to ZEN. If you believe this, and it's ok if you do, then I would expect you to never buy Noront again, right? Afterall, why would anyone buy NOT when ZEN is clearly the winner in your eye. By posted calculations, ZEN is approximately 165 times more valuable then NOT ($30 a share compared to $5000 a share). As I said, it's ok to think and truly believe this, but what isn't ok in my mind is to publicly state this, if your intentions are to sell out of the one that you're predicting $5000 a share for, and buying the one that you've downplayed. Just my opinion though.

I also see flaws in some of the statements posted recently. This one especially:

"So Noront would have to find 4 times the In Situe value of ZEN to get the same per share value."

How on earth did you talk yourself into believing this? If insitue value had anything to do with it, why isn't ZEN at $5000 a share? And why isn't NOT at $30? I'd be extremely careful doing math and automatically equating share price ratios from it. Knowing what's in the ground and how much it's worth is of course important, but boy oh boy is it ever a small piece of the equation to what really matters to us............the share price. Noront's market cap has been over $1 billion before, ZENs around $250 million. Does this mean that Noront is in fact worth 4 times that of ZEN? God know. Worth is a funny thing. What it does mean though, is that the market has valued NOT at 4 times that of ZEN at one point, granted, as glorieux pointed out, it was a different time. Point is, there are many factors that attribute to share price, it is not simple math, so pointing it out as fact is incorrect.

Personally, if I was a ZEN holder and believed the $1666 to $5000 a share calculations, i'd be asking myself what I was missing, because it isn't close to that. I mean, we all seem to be on the same page as to why NOT isn't seeing fair value, ie:

1. lack of infrastructure

2. cliffs moving out

3. FN disputes

4. no major financing

5. no easement decision

etc. But if ZEN is as slam dunkish as is pointed out so regularily, why isn't it at $5000 a share, give or take a few thousand per share? What are we missing?

I want to make it very clear that I have nothing against ZEN, nothing at all. The story looks absolutely awesome, the hits have been amazing, the share structure is bulletproof, management great. I simply think investing in NOT today at $0.40 cents is a much smarter bet than ZEN at $4.00. And no, not because I think NOT is "worth" more. I don't care about that. I just look at the above 5 reasons for NOT's languish and see a huge light at the end of the tunnel for these issues. In fact, I can see all of these being erased within a couple of months. For ZEN, in my view (right sometimes, wrong sometimes) doesn't have the short term catalysts coupled with the deflated share price that NOT does. I don't see how on earth it outperforms NOT over the next couple of months. I see NOT at $1 (150% gain) much more realistic than ZEN at $10 a share (also 150% gain). I don't see it because of insitue value, share float, or any other mathematical reason. I see it for all the other simplistic reasons, KISS:

1. it's been beat up badly

2. it has momentum right now, and a great looking chart

3. government have said it is enormous and it will succeed

4. EA coming soon

and last but certainly not least

5. something is afoot and IT IS DUE

I think in the end we all need to calm down, not get so bent out of shape as to who is smarter and which stock is better. Play whichever one you want, for whatever reasons you want, but don't rub salt in open wounds. Come and go as you please, it's all of our right to do so, but pipe it if you leave. As our elders always say "if you have nothing nice to say.........." Just my two cents. Not meant to piss anyone off.

djje