That was a great post Stewie! Well thought out and well presented. The argument itself leaves a little to be desired but nevertheless, great post.

Having been involved with St. Elias Mines over the past few years I don’t think that anyone here needs a refresher on disclosure. What is needed it a better comprehension.

My comprehesion of TSX-V disclosure policies is very sound thank you.

To the best of my knowledge all material information has been published and presented to shareholders. Are you suggesting that information has been, or is being, withheld? If you are please elaborate.

My concern is in both the information not yet released and the information that has been released. Examples have been discussed over and over on this board if you are so inclined you'll be able to find plenty of it.

If we are missing some material information we need to ask for it at the AGM when we have the ear of the CEO.

Are you meaning the AGM which will have arbitrary selective admission policies, since you have been around this company for years, what makes you think even for a second that the CEO's ears are open to the shareholders? I think the fact that it is impossible to even get the most rudimentary information from the company via phone if in fact they answer it...you may be hoping against hope when suggesting the CEO would hear us out.

When you discuss the nature of information disclosed you tout that it must not be “ambiguous, relative or subjective...an example of such terms would include but are not limited to: Large, Favourable, World-Class, Exciting, Very Similar to Red Lake, etc.” I will grant you that I have found some of the disclosures to be a bit ambiguous, relative and subjective. This is not at all unusual for the venture exchange where companies compete for investors money and may the best story win!

It may be true that break laws and regulations are common on the Venture, but that is twisted argument to rationalize it happening in the company you are invested in and have lost significant money in. Your argument is akin to the old sports adage "if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'" Regardless if you feel this can be rationalized, if a regulation or law is broken...just because it doesn't get enforced...it is still broken.

I don’t view this as a problem with St. Elias Mines but rather a problem with the entire venture exchange.

If it happens within SLI and the entire Venture...it is incomprehensible to me that you only find it to be a problem with the Venture and not SLI. That is one impressive bit of twisted logic.

I do not see this problem being dealt with so all that investors can do is understand that this is how the venture works so that they can invest within the natural workings of the venture exchange.

That is absolute nonsense. You are suggesting that laws and regulations are irrelevant and that the "natural environment" trumps the "legal/regulated environment".

By your twisted logic...a person run over by a speeding car should know better because they should be aware that plenty of people speed and they are often not charged therefore it is just the natural workings of things.

That said, you will find that even with the relative or subjective information pertaining to St. Elias Mines found in disclosures, such as the Red Lake example, remains accurate. Relative and subjective statements have been used to demonstrate possibility and potential and the company was very clear when this was the case. Also, you might want to take note that terms like “exciting, extremely please, bonanza grade, visible gold, massive potential, possible world-class deposit, etc. are absolutely common place when dealing with any venture stock.

Because it is common and goes largely without reprimand...doesn't mean it is unlawful.

So, you make a sound argument in principal; however, in practice it hold no water all all.

You argument to discredit my argument is predicated largely on the idea that if a lot of of companies break the laws and regulations it is ok to break them yourself and investors should know better and it's their fault if they beleive the companies they invest in...and my argument holds no water?

As I understand it, there was a director who crossed the line but he is gone now (based on reading both Agoracom and Stockhouse). That does not mean that those actions are inexcusable but what more do you want, he has lost his positions with SLI.

You are misunderstood, the Director who has crossed the line remains as the President/CEO as has been shown through various recorded evidence. As I understand it there is no evidence of any kind that the director who was removed had ever crossed any line and in fact the reason for his removal remains a mystery to me. He was removed "with cause" but it has never been revealed to the public and as I understand it, the company has never even informed the director of the cause. If you are aware of the "cause" I would be pleased to have that mystery revealed....and considering how valuable many shareholders felt the director was to the company...it would seem to be very important information to know as a shareholder....not to mention if it is in fact true that the company did not inform the director of the "cause"...that opens the company up to more significant legal concerns as it is entirely unlawful to dismiss with cause without informing the person what the cause is and justifying it...but of course that is obvious.

While you argue that had investors invested emotionally on specific, complete, and factual information may have resulted in a different outcome I argue that investors had specific, complete, and factual information.

Let it be clear, I don't beleive all invested on emotion...and certainly not only on emotion. Many, many invested on cold calculated due diligence.

The problem is two fold, firstly they apparently did not had the profound understanding of the information that they where given and secondly their emotional investing on poorly understood specific, complete, and factual information resulted in this travesty. It was emotion, not logic, that let investor put it all on the line on a single stock.

You are making some incredibly grand assumptions.

1. Assuming that the entire pool of investors lacked the intelligence to understand the information is insulting and condescending to say the least to the many professionals whose intelligence and success in their big toe dwarfs that of the very CEO you so desperately want to defend. Not to mention that it is entirely off base.

2. Plenty of people didn't put it "all on the line, on a single stock"...but even those who did...did it assuming the information they recieved from SLI was entirely true. Which has been absolutely proven otherwise.

I totally disagree with you when you claim that “it has been revealed however that much incomplete, subjective and fictional information was disseminated and shareholders were left to beleive what they heard and base their investment decisions on that...which was an entirely logical and rational course of action as they reasonably assumed they were protected by the regulations and laws that require the complete truth and thus beleived everything they heard from the company.”

When you make such an incredible accusation I expect, as everyone should, some very sound proof of the accusation. You can not simply claim that the company put out fictional information and walk away from the statement as if it is well known fact when it is indeed an unsubstantiated claim at best.

I suppose that's fair...but I assumed since you've been around for years you have listened to all the recordings and read through all the NR's and read all the analysis. I have even discussed plenty in my previous posts.

In Summary:

1. The venture exchange companies are not held to the same standard as the TSX companies.

Yet it is entirely logical and reasonable to expect what standards that are in place are followed by companies and the regulators to enforce them.

2. Emotional investing is always bad.

Yep, but to assume all of the 1000's of investors who invested millions did it on emotion...is foolish

3. Interpreting things beyond your scope of understanding almost certainly ensures that your hypothesis is wrong.

I'm not sure you have the authority to judge my intelligence or competence in anything.

4. It is up to investors to understand all disclosed information, decipher when needed, seek help when needed, prior to investing.

Agreed, and it is up to the company to disclose all information within the regulations and laws that govern disclosure so that investors have a reasonable chance of understanding the disclosed information, deciphering it when needed and so those who are sought for help can make rational decisions.

5. You invest at your own risk, no one is responsible for protecting you. It is up to you to protect yourself with proper research and if need be professional advice.

Yes you do invest at your own risk...but you are ABSOLUTELY incorrect when saying there is no one responsible for protecting you. Taxpayers pay to have entities like the BCSC to do exactly that. In fact their SOLE MANDATE is to do exactly that! It is truly mind-boggling for you to suggest otherwise.

6. If laws are broken, the law will deal with the perpetrator but the likelihood of getting all of your money back is virtually nil. Refer back to point number 5.

It is naive to make a blanket statement like "If laws are broken, the law will deal with the perpetrator"... you make the assumption that getting money back through litigation is my goal...I'll tell you my goals.

1. Have a competent CEO, Board and Staff replace the current one.

2. If laws have been broken, aid authorities and regulators in any way within my means to have those prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

7. Read point number 5 again.

I find it comical that you should exhibit such condescension by directing me to a point of yours which is entirely flawed.

8. Read point number 5 again.

Read my response to number 7

9. Read point number 5 again.

Read my response to number 7

10.Read point number 5 again.

Read my response to number 7