The following post was removed from ihub as "off-topic", but the post it responded to is of course still up. If anyone wants to "clean it up" to ihub standards (whatever they are) and repost, be my guest...

More absurdities! A whole day's worth in one short post!

Here's the post:

[quote]All of this talk about the price of gold and silver, well yes thats great, however it has little to do with SFMI share price or valuation of the company.....SFMI has no proven resourses nor have they demonstrated that the tailings piles have any PM content...if they were able to provide concrete evidence that they are in fact processing ore that contains even small amounts of gold and silver, and were selling concentrates to a smelter and recieving revenue for gold and silver content, then the price of gold and silver may have some bearing on the share price, but without any proven resourses or grade numbers for the public, I am in disbelief that folks are placing so much confidance on the market prices of precious metals when there is no relationship until there are some numbers....as I see it....[/quote]

Let's dissect it...

[quote]All of this talk about the price of gold and silver, well yes thats great, however it has little to do with SFMI share price or valuation of the company...[/quote]

The prices of gold and silver have nothing to do with the price of a company producing gold and silver? Nonsense.

[quote]SFMI has no proven resourses[/quote]

This idea of "resources" has been gone over before. To believe that SFMI has no resources (gold and silver) is to not believe every single historical reference, every single reliable souce (such as Kinross's senior geologist), every single official source (such as the Idaho Geological survey), every assay that has been run both before and after SFMI took over of the ore piles and samples and drilling from the mines, etc. It also means you don’t believe any of SFMI’s PRs regarding production, or the over 100 people that saw SFMI producing gold and silver.

[quote]nor have they demonstrated that the tailings piles have any PM content...[/quote]

An absolute lie. Stop lying. SFMI and others have assayed the piles, as well as samples from the mines themselves, and many of the results are available. Just a few of the results (all from SFMI PRs, often quoting independent analyses, many conducted before SFMI acquired the properties): “2.45 oz. /ton gold“, “0.75 oz per ton”, “3.6 oz per ton”, “16.846 Au OPT”, “1,000 ppm in Gold (23.86 oz Gold / Ton)”, “5.1 grams/ton Au and 72.7grams/ton Ag”, “3.3 g/ton Gold and 94.5 g/ton Silver”, “6.9 g/ton Gold and 50.9 g/ton Silver”, “.62 opt Gold and 8.48 opt Silver”, “3.3 g/ton Gold and 94.5 g/ton”, “1,000 ppm of Gold, or 660 g/t Gold (23.27 oz Gold/ton)”, “64 g/t Gold (2.5 oz Gold/ton)”, “.18 to .85 oz Gold/ton”, “.11 to ..45 oz Gold/ton”, “.24 to .88 oz Gold/ton”, “63 g/t Gold (2.2 oz Gold/ton) 1,109 g/t Silver (39.1 oz Silver/ton)”, “477 g/t Gold (16.9 oz Gold/ton) 3,180 g/t Silver(112.2 oz Silver/ton)”, “103 g/t Gold (3.6 oz Gold/ton)”. BTW, most mining companies can only dream of grades like these.

SFMI produced their first dore bar from the ore piles in 2008. In addition, SFMI’s mill is producing gold and silver from the ore piles right now- as reported by SFMI in a number of announcements, and as directly observed and reported by the attendees at the shareholder meeting. Why would anyone lie about such an easily refutable subject, especially when many on this board have first hand knowledge that it is a lie?

[quote]if they were able to provide concrete evidence that they are in fact processing ore that contains even small amounts of gold and silver[/quote]

Such as allowing over 100 shareholders to observe the process? And see the gold and silver flowing off the line? More nonsense.

[quote]I am in disbelief that folks are placing so much confidance on the market prices of precious metals when there is no relationship until there are some numbers.[/quote]

See above for some numbers. As for being in disbelief, you don’t seem to believe SFMI’s PRs, the historical data, independent assays, official documents, or even your fellow posters who went to the meeting and reported what they saw and heard. Why should they believe you?

[quote]as I see it.[/quote]

No, you didn’t see it. Or hear it. Because you didn’t go to the meeting. Or believe the reports (and photos) of those who did. It also appears that you haven’t seen (or at least don’t believe) any of the historical and official data, assays, and reports.

BTW, ihub provides a spellcheck service. Please use it.