Packfan,

It's good that the e-mail was real. It was quite something seeing a fury of activity with requests for a copy of Sandra's e-mail via pm's that hit some limit set by AGO. It's just like forwarding chain-mail, and if the chain is long enough, it would be tough to locate who was the originator of the letter/e-mail. In some situations, after passing through many hands the information at the end of the line would not be the same as the original information.

Usually, it's not a good idea to put on public BB private e-mail verbatim, unless permission has been given by the writer (e.g. Sandra in this case). In a request for information/clarification from IR people, I would normally ask if it would be OK to make public the information given by IR in summary form. If permission is given the I would proceed with a summary of the main points I have learned from IR, since this information is not for my own use hence it should be disseminated and share in our "investment club" (I would treat the BB as an investment club where people can share info and exchange ideas). It would take some effort, but sometimes it's a good idea to protect the source of your information.

Another thing is that we can always check back with IR to verify the accuracy of information. In this case, we could perhaps send a copy of the e-mail to IR and ask for its authenticity/veracity (Note: It's not that we don't trust the originator, but it would not hurt to verify)...As Ronald Reagan said to Gorbachev:

Doveryai, no proveryai

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6y5eI01XE

Thanks to Glorieux with his publication of the e-mail (G: I presumed that you had permission? lol) I did not have a clue what it was that caused all the hub bub.

As it turned out, as you have indicated, the e-mail did not really contain any earth shattering information, which could perhaps be summarized in a few lines for the benefit of our BB nembers. If in doubt, people can always call or e-mail IR to verify. If Sandra were contacted with the same question, she would probably send out an identical e-mail...then it would be a real one.

Cheers,

goldhunter