Just a little refresher.

It is required by law for all disclosure publicly related to material information past and present to be complete, specific and factual. All public disclosures are subject to the same scrutiny of disclosure policies and laws protecting shareholders.

Public disclosures include but are not limited to: 43-101, News Releases, AGM's, promotional meetings, powerpoint presentations, interviews and paid promotions.

Specific, Complete and Factual means that all information and delivery of that information 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.

The reason I put this out is to make it perfectly clear...while it is generally accepted for over-zealous forum goers to make grandiose statements, unfounded predictions and such...The company is held to a much greater standard by the law and it is NEVER acceptable under disclosure guidelines and laws to disseminate information in this frivolous manner.

Any suggestion that statements of promotion in this manner is somehow ok is absolutely unfounded and pumping a stock with more than just facts is not in accordance with disclosure policies, laws or regulations.

Not surprisingly, this is in place..in part...for the very reason shareholders are being accused of acting. Emotionally on what they hear...therefore regulations and laws are in place to ensure that shareholders...many of which are understandably unsophisticated investors...are protected by only providing complete, specific and factual information to base their investment decisions on.

Had investors acted emotionally solely and entirely on specific, complete, and factual information then I would say what many are saying. Too bad, you should have seen the signs and sold...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.

In summary...

It is the responsibility of the company for specific, complete and factual disclosure in ALL venues...not the responsibility of the market and shareholders to decipher what is specific and what is not, what is complete and what is incomplete or what is fact and what is fiction.

S.