I check the forum about once every few weeks to keep semi up to date with CUU. Sold my shares in summer of 2013 and got bashed on for my reasoning, one of which was how things were likely going to turn in a matter of weeks.

It's now March 2014 and I'm reading the same bs about news being expected in couple of week and it just makes me laugh.

If you even consider deleting this post for bringing up past information I'd challenge you into thinking - whats more harmful to investors. A reality check from time to time from my post? Or continuous posters dangling that carrot of "a few weeks" to vulnerable investors.

Might be the SP or a specific HL doing this.

For what its worth, I've posted some pretty hostile opinions that have generated decent discussion and never had any issues with my posts being deleted. That at least gives some credibility to the HL of promoting free discussion.

If you're confident about the investment and end game, in some sense shouldn't you be encouraging the SP to drop so you can accumulate more shares at lower prices?

I don't understand why you keep calling people inexperienced investors. If you read my post I actually mention that the crappy macroeconomics situation is one of the negative contributors to the SP.

The fact is you are now changing your original statement to match what I originally posted. You now admit that, using your own words, "it indeed...is a different company".

Thank you for proving me right.

But the questions you are asking are irrelevant to my post.

This is what I posted:
"Have you even seen the FS? Arizona? Management changes? LOL"

And this is what you posted:
"So you would prefer to have all the full staff still there ? To do what? our part of the deal is done for teck. Ewong please answer how having all the staff still at the office would help us at this point."

I never said having a full staff would be better or worse in the first place. I was simply pointing out that the structure of management has changed in response to someone who was claiming that the company is identical to 2011. It is your own incorrect assumption and faulty interpretation that what I said somehow suggests that I would prefer having a full staff there...

And I understand that its frustrating having to hold onto a stock and see no improvement (I did that with CUU for a lonnggg time), but please refrain from the personal attacks. Part of the reason I continue to use this board as a resource is because of the intelligent conversations and insight that people have to offer.

Apologies for the late response. I am no longer invested in this company so I do not read these boards as often as I use to. I should clarify that I am aninvestor. Not aCUU groupie. What this means is that I base my investment decisions off of sound logic and not some unsubstantiated hope that some people have on this board.

I've reiterated that I believe CUU has a large upswing potential for all the aforementioned reasons on this board, but for me the time is not right. I've made this statement when I sold my shares in July and I have been right.. Within those ~3 months I've made large gains in other investments. If I had just held my CUU shares like many of you suggested, I would not have seen any gain in my investment.

The reason why I still read this board, however, is because there is a lot of knowledge and information here. I stay semi-plugged into the CUU story because I want to make sure that, when this upswing happens (not talking about day-to-day trading, but when a substantial NR is released) I am here for the ride. Sure, by not having my money in at these 52-week lows I will miss out on some of the gain. But that's the price I'm willing to pay because I'm fairly confident that what I've gained from my other investments more than makes up for it.

Now, to get back to that comment. I spoke up because Stroef was putting down another forum member by calling him an inexperienced investor with completely faulty reasoning. Here was his opening line:

"You are probably an inexperienced investor. The price is clearly not representing the value of this company since its exactly the same company fundamentally compared to when it was worth 2,75 in 2011."

This is probably the most BS statement I have read in this forum. Things have most certainly changed since 2011 (for better and for worse) and if you don't believe that you are beyond hope. The point of my statement was to highlight just some of the things that have changed. DeepPocket you incorrectly assumed that what I was trying to highlight were negative aspects of the company. Perhaps I should have stated it like this.

Good things that have changed since 2011: Teck backing in, legitimizes CUU

Bad things that have changed since 2011: Pre-BFS and BFS discrepancies (i.e. the negative cost ordeal). IMO THIS + poor economics is what drove our SP down.

Things that have changed that are neither good nor bad, but do affect the way the company is run: management change, arizona

But by all means, this company is not the same as it was in 2011. There, happy?