1. I understand why they are important but do not understand the absence of them.

2. Just the opposite. With the historic information released by sli, I do not understand how what has been released for results could be all that is significant enough to see. I believe most feel this way which is why I request full disclosure of the approx 2500 assays, good or bad. I also feel this could help restore some trust.

3. I absolutely do not question the validity of geophysical tools such as quantec but do question a managements motives when the information is publicly available and then is no longer.

4. Yes I want to see all assays regardless of grades with the drill hole azimuths

5. Yes I do. Suddenly in calgary the 'source' was constantly being referred to. It hadnt until then. We questioned drilling the anomolies and got responses regarding the source. I look at the source as what fed the anomolies above it.

6. I do not question the surface location of drill holes but with the lack of information I do not know where they went underground. Therefore I do not know what anomolies/high priority targets were drilled, or how far into them we went.

7. Incorrect. I feel management released much information in the past which if it was available now may garner investment interest. I also feel clearing the air with all assays sent to the lab to date may help as well. All that I posted..other then my comments was copied from managements previously released info right off their website...before it was stripped. I hope this clears things up for you. Dont think I dont understand what you're trying to do with your method of questioning me. Doesnt it suck when how something is written can be interpreted in more ways then one?