Crazy H it seems you are comparing SLI's results as if each hole was completely assayed top to bottom and the listed assays are all we have... How can you possibly think that those intercepts are all there is for each hole? I don't understand how you could miss the fact that most intercepts reported are exactly 0.50m. How is that possible in a natural occurance. It's a pretty significant point don't you think? 3 out of 4 of the listed intercepts in your comparison are 0.50m. At least for those ones, to me that screams select sample. Maybe I'm wrong. Who knows. Lori is clearly using odd tactics in our case as far as how information is released, but comparing partial inconclusive results to arequipas complete results can be misleading. If a person sees it as complete for each hole then yes you would be right to compare this way but maybe stating that in your post would avoid the fact that you look like you have an agenda to cause doubt. Can you shed some light on why you feel the intercepts for each hole in our latest NR are all there is for those holes...especially the 0.50m deal..Maybe you can explain that to those of us who find that so significant. Because for me...a light went on when that was pointed out.
