Member Info for DrQu

Thanks ToS - eagle eyed as ever I missed that :-)

Could someone kindly confirm whether for ordinary and special written resolutions a simple 50%+ and 75%+ majority of actual votes cast is required respectively to pass the resolutions or is that the percentages of votes eligible to be cast that is required (or indeed both). Appreciated.

That was not the case with your information I hasten to add - I certainly found it very useful :-)

Hi Z - There was me thinking an ‘FFS’ was simply an expression of exasperation felt by some chat board members at the comments of others ??

Quady - a bit below the belt on the google point ;-)
Actually I have read enough of Locke in the past to know his written opinion of aethiests and as to whether they should be allowed the freedom to speak on such matters. That said I don’t consider it lazy to check a rusty memory by jumping to tool at hand rather than searching for the nearest volume of world according to JL and reading end to end. I view that to be eminently sensible. I know that some have argued in his defence that he had no choice in the views he expressed as to atheists. That however is a matter of contention and is certainly not one you could have arrived at by reading JL himself now is it? Perhaps a little googling yourself around the opinions on JL?
As for Jefferson you offer him up as a stalwart in support of your opinion as to the nature of freedom of speech. Two things really. Firstly as a slaver his opinion as to the nature of freedom/liberty is well questionable I would have thought (today’s standards to yesterday’s environment - not really - there was quite a lot of opposition to slavery at the time you will find). Secondly it undermines your own position. He believed in restricting freedom of speech on the basis of race. Are those really the restrictions you wish to emphasise when it comes to arguing/justifying why the freedom of speech has historically always been limited?

Quady, actually you can only repeat what your ‘opinion’ is as to the nature of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech maybe legally defined (which will impose restrictions) but this of course will differ according to political system, culture, historical period and geography. Also, as to whether those restrictions are just would also be a matter of opinion. As a concept, freedom of speech is of course a matter of discussion/debate. Yes you can draw on eminent philosophers throughout the ages to justify and add merit to your opinion. That does not however make you factually correct. After all if there was no discussion/debate to be offered as to the nature of the freedom of speech why did they have to argue their case in the first place. Your list is also hardly exhaustive especially when you exclude the likes of Mills, who coincidentally championed a very unrestricted right to the freedom of speech and liberty in general.

As I recall Locke denied atheists the right to voice their opinions freely? Do you subscribe to that viewpoint. I also don’t think Jefferson is a fit person for anyone to employ in any discussion about the freedom of anything - do you?

Quady, perhaps you could enlighten us. The entire nation of Scotland appears to be having this very debate at the moment and so it does not appear to be for many at least as pre-determined as you imply.

That is not the point Miagi - the point been made was how terrible it is for first world countries to have exploited third world countries in the past by plundering their most precious resources. I just think if a person wishes to tread so heavily on the moral high ground they might want to consider how virtuous the actions they support actually are. To acquire doctors and nurses from much poorer countries that surely need them simply because a country is wealthier and can afford to pay them much higher wages does not correlate with the moral outrage previously indicated. That said it is a tiresome subject and not what this board is for. So I do apologise to other members for been drawn in on this discussion.

Well when you say ‘when we moved into the third world’ I think my reference is self explanatory. As for the NHS is it not yours? Do you not pay for it, use it and clearly are quite happy to staff at the expense of the developing world?

I do have to ask Copper, when your staffing your NHS with the best educated youth of the developing world what on earth makes you think you’ve stopped the pillage and plundering of the past that your so happy to condemn?

Hi Red - I think NCM approaching CGP direct for their 15% of Cascabel is a very real possibility and perhaps CGP’s only hope (I do not see any significant advantage for BHP or any other major in doing the same). This would be a much simpler and less cumbersome/expensive way than an outright bid for NCM to attach themselves to Cascabel no matter who is at the SOLG helm. I doubt very much NCM’s ambitions stretch much further than been owner/large player of a Cascabel mine in production. Surely given the potential size and scope of SOLG’s remaining targets no matter who is in control of SOLG future partners will be required. Given NCM would with this scenario already be owning a 15% chunk in Cascabel then surely they would be everyone’s obvious first preference to invest further in taking it to production.
That said if NCM were going to opt to make a bid for CGP’s share of Cascabel you would have thought they would do this prior to the pfs release. Perhaps Nick is even holding this back to allow NCM to make this play?

Hi jux - absolutely. The potential scenarios here are quite mind boggling and I imagine the intrigue going on behind the scenes would put the game of thrones to shame. As the story unwinds I find it utterly riveting. There is definitely a book to write here (especially if a new major was to emerge somehow from this) and I might have to give Nick a bell. As for those assays you mention they might well be the light that blows the powder keg.

Hi DBW - but what a nice problem to have and hopefully one that continues as news from each of the many other regional targets starts to land ??

Whether Nick truly wants to build a major (which can be achieved by joint venturing on one or more of the likely assets as well as completely going alone) or he is looking to ensure he gets the best possible price for SOLG his actions for now are one of the same. To achieve either he needs time to convince us/majors he has multiple tier 1’s on his hands and that he can fund the development of Alpala. He does that successfully and at some point I see us share holders getting to choose between a long play with quite literally an incredible pot of gold equivalent at the end of the rainbow, a very juicy price for the company in the shorter term or something in between (joint venture some / going solo others).
All that been said it’s now upto the other players to make the next move and deny him that time if they are to get the best deal for themselves.
Any major wanting to own SOLG outright will not want to start an expensive bidding war. Most will be looking to see what BHP and Newcrest do next and how Nick responds before showing their hand.
BHP will surely be behind the scenes asking Nick what his price is and/or how they can take this thing forward together. He will frustrate them for as long as he can.
Newcrest will be wanting to secure as much of a stake in Alpala for themselves as they can get (with anything else a bonus). I imagine they also are actively engaging Nick to further these ends.
As soon as either BHP or Newcrest suspect Nick won’t play ball or is in bed with another party they will move. For BHP that might be an immediate hostile bid (I see that as their best option for success in terms of time/simplicity/overall expense). It would have to be substantial to convince the majority, given they can only otherwise count on their own 14% and CGP for support.
For Newcrest that might be be an actual approach for CGP or been seen to be serious about such an approach. The former guarantees them a place at the table when it comes to Alpala’s future and the latter might be enough for either Nick or BHP to come to an accommodation with them.
Nick I believe will be afforded by both some time but not too much. Whatever his ultimate objective if he spends this time wisely (and/or gets even luckier on the exploration front) it will prove very fruitful for us PI’s (one way or another). If he does not I believe he will force Newcrest and BHP to reach an accommodation with each other, the worst outcome for PI’s. Assuming CGP would support such an hostile move, they have 35% of the vote and a low ball offer could then succeed. For the moment the longer the current status continues I think the better the outcome on our side.

Like many I suspect, whether this is sold for a reasonable price in the near future or Nick manages to take this to production, I don’t really care. When it comes to his veracity on taking this all the way however I find myself asking how did the relationship with CGP become so toxic and so fast. I assume that prior to the announcement that SOLG would pursue a hostile bid for CGP there must have been a friendly approach, a discussion on the future. Could Nick have outlined a desire to go to production (shortly after announcing his ‘going for gold strategy’) and CGP reacted with horror?
Two CEO’s realising their objectives are now not only diametrically opposed but actually threatening to the others position/company might explain a few things in this respect.

Hi addicknt - so you believe NM has his price and BHP are willing to pay it? If so I assume you are expecting BHP to move quickly to avoid that figure getting larger.

Is this roughly correct ...
Nick/Allies - control 20%
BHP - 14%
NCM - 14%
CGP - 7%
Black - 5%
PI’s/Small II’s - 40%
If the above is about right BHP can only succeed without Nick’s backing if they either make a large offer (tempting not just CGP which won’t need much but also Black and/or
a large % of PI’s) or coming to terms with NCM and making a reasonable offer.
Other Majors to succeed will need to make a very large offer and even then, as Nick/BHP/NCM you would expect to oppose, it would be close. Almost certainly would need one of the afore mentioned three on board.

I think the point is where are all the fossils that should show the transition of animals which co-habit with us today. There should be millions you would think - the dna evidence suggests for example dogs descend from wolves. Unfortunately there is not a single fossil it seems as yet discovered. I have no religious affiliation whatsoever and can appreciate the beauty of scientific theory when merited (of which I would include the ‘idea’ of evolution).
That said they still have to survive the rigours of scientific proof.

I think the argument moved on - the serious anti-evolutionists argue not that the fossils we have are not real but what happened to all the fossils we should be finding if Darwin was in fact correct? I only raise this as I assume we must have some folks knowledgeable in the field of geology here and I have to say this does have me scratching my head.