--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jun 3, 2007, at 9:57 AM, authfriend wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2007, at 8:43 PM, boo_lives wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shukra69" <stephen4359@> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thats an ugly non-answer to the question "What happened to Ron > > > > > Dector ?" > > > > > > > > > the investors bear ultimate responsibility, but i heard their > > > > sale pitch (cowhig, dector and wilson)and it basically took > > > > advantage of naive sidhas belief that nothing could go wrong > > > > investing with guys who were so close to MMY. completely > > > > unbusineslike and unethical. > > > > > > That's funny, because there was a 60 Minutes segment on the gold > > > mine this is supposed to bring to this section of Canada. > > > > Let's see now, the company was trying to develop a > > technology for converting Canada's tar sands into > > petroleum, and the fact that it wasn't successful > > at doing so is "funny" because tar sands exploitation > > is highly profitable for Canada? > > > > How does that work, exactly? > > They lied or were simply unknowledgable about the viability of the > technology to do so. Most likely the latter.
I'm asking why not being knowledgeable about the viability of the technology would be "funny" in light of the potential profits for Canada. I don't see the connection between the two.
