Ann: High Grade Results Continue at Oposura, page-60

It's clear where I'm relying on fact and where I'm speculating. In fact it's very obvious. But the point is which are the more reasonable arguments being made?

I may get back to you on your calculations....but I'd rather ponder on your more interesting assumptions...

I asked for further and better particulars.

This bold requirement of mine that you should post more detail seems to have hit a nerve. Indeed it had you posting away in bolded font in a very aggressive style, plenty of insults thrown into the mix.

Either we produce
a) just ore and truck it out, (who does that? expensive) or
b) concentrate, and truck it out (less expensive, normal), or
c) metal which you've specified. This means a smelter. (hugely expensive!)

As for your calculations...hmm!

Prety (sic) simple 10/100 x 365 x 125 x 4000 =18.25 mill

What? 10% average metal content of the ore.
365 days of the year production?
Then it's 125 x 4000

125 what? Production tonnes per day? Why can't you spell it out?
Is it too much to expect you won't misuse mill to mean million dollars? (Remember Metric?) You're using it interchangeably to refer to a mill that refines the ore.

Are you giving Zn a $4000 per tonne valuation? is it too much to ask you to use a dollar sign where relevant?
You're giving this $18.5 million per year in production value? (ditto)
As usual you obfuscate and pretend to be making it all clear.
You won't even spell out for the punter what your calculations are.

You're full of non sequiturs, curve-balls and purported misunderstandings...you're in a mock fury with all the bold and multiple exclamation marks, then it's patronising remarks.

Then you say you're trying to save the company from making bad decisions.
.............................................................................................................
Salpetie has made a number of useful posts, but I think inadvertantly he's stirred up a trader's hornets nest with this fixation over discontinuities. Surely with the patterns already established we knew there must be some.

Indeed, you glossed over the fact that Salpetie has in his conclusion stated that AZS has most likely been aware of the likely resource results and factored that into the purchase decision. I don't think that's an unreasonable conclusion to reach. In fact I think it's a rather obvious one. But it's well worthwhile his stating it, and my restating it, and again. As some in here are remarkably resistant to the obvious.