Farmboy (23:09) Greetings, friend. Although we have different
methods of election campaigning in this country which prevent me from understanding the dynamics of your current situation, I do truly admire your devotion to a cause you believe in, which you and your son are now demonstrating and which you are sharing with others on Goldtent, even with interested observers, like me, outside your country. I wish you progress for the ideals and hopes you are working towards.
In your 23:09 note addressed to me, I noted that you cross-referenced it to my 22:51 posting about the history of Barrick. In my opinion, more relevant to the discussion about Barrick is the link I posted to MadMike at 21:01. Since Friday, 01 Feb, when I posted a question on the subject, there has been substantial discussion about Barrick. For me it has for some time now raised a red flag as to why Mr. Sinclair has been so gentle in his comments about Barrick when so many of us on Goldtent cannot relate to the things that Barrick does or Barrick represents.
The point of my 21:01 link to MadMike is to raise one question. If in 1999 Barrick purchased Sutton Resources Ltd. for $350 million by way of paying for that purchase with Barrick stock (see link at 21:01), who now has the interest in protecting the value of those acquired Barrick shares that were acquired in the 1999 sale of Sutton Resources to Barrick?
I do not know how much of Sutton Resources was personally owned by Mr. Sinclair in 1999, or by other Sutton equity shareholders in the form of entities controlled by Mr. Sinclair, nor do I know what has happened since 1999 to the Sinclair-related Barrick shares acquired in 1999. It is simply this bit of “not knowing” that has made me wonder about the objectivity of Mr. Sinclair when he makes comments about Barrick.
As I said in a previous note - just wondering. Equiz.
p.s. You know what I think it boils down to, Farmboy? Who do you trust these days?