Member Info for addicknt

Nal, you are lying. Full stop.

And just as an fyi, I have no strong opinions about Irwin and my views haven't changed.

So, you quite evidently didn't manage to find a post in which I was 'downright abusive'. In other words, you completely fabricated your comment.

Sorry, DM, I really should heed your advice.

Fair point, DM.

Nal, are you completely stupid? You said I'd been abusive about WI in an earlier post and I asked you to point out which one. You then come back and talk about deflection. My question was simple enough - even for you.

Nal, please point out my post which was 'downright abusive'.

Q, the debt markets are as tight as a gnat's chuff at the moment and any fund raising would come at a high price. And the equity markets aren't much better.

As you know, I don't subscribe to your view of the 'diverse book' and have always felt this would be an agreed deal - and still do.

My beef is lack of clarity. It simply isn't good enough to mutter about going to production whilst simultaneously stating we are not miners - it's total balls. If mining is the preferred option, drop all pretence of it being for sale and crack on with the task in hand. If a buyer subsequently emerges and makes a good offer, that's fine, but the focus should be made crystal clear. No one sensible running a business can do so with one eye over their shoulder; set the strategy, announce it to shareholders are get on with it.

Perhaps they don't have Twitter in the wastelands of Australia, because it's quite clear you don't understand how it works.

Perhaps one of you Twitter people could ask Irwin where he got his information from? Specifically, the reference to mining.

Q, the thing which concerns me is the suggestion the SR will be an 'ongoing process' with no conclusion and therefore no clear direction of travel that's comprehensible to all. That is NOT the object of an SR.

If the company now thinks it can mine , just say so and we can then make our minds up as to wether we wish to continue being invested.

Dbw, exactly. But the thing is we, and the market, should not be put in the position of having to interpret matters - there should be a very clear strategy which, after all, is what the SR was meant to deliver.

Snowman, we know the DFS has been put on ice, so how this fits in with mining is beyond my comprehension.

The lack of communication and clarity has become a real issue and I confess I expected better from Caldwell.

Interesting.

We know SC has talked about advancing engineering works at Cascabel, but when did he announce his intention to mine it? And how does this fit in with interested parties doing dd in the data room? What happened to 'not (being) mine builders'?

Has Caldwell tied himself in the same knots as NM and DC? I sincerely hope not. Time for a bit of clarity, Mr Caldwell.

You seem very eager to label others as fantasists, but let's face it, your effort of a few weeks back was a masterclass in complete tosh.

I seem to recall you claimed to have successfully manipulated the market so you could buy shares for a 'client'. Apparently, you achieved your ambition and got him in at circa 20p (from memory), whereas if you'd simply sat back for bit longer you could have done so at 16p. I guess your fantasy client must be over the moon. And as for all that other nonsense...

Anyway, that's the end of this exchange.

I'm sure we're all eternally grateful for your vigilance. It's so helpful not having to employ ones own critical faculties.

1981, but you don't know that, do you? We are all in the dark, you included.

Perhaps the simple answer is that all of these parties are in the data room - hence the speculation.

1981, and you know this how?

The answer is you have no more idea of what's happening than anyone else.

Bozi, the thought did occur, particularly as Betaville is a respected source, but I don't know the answer, unless an announcement is imminent.

The Plough at Kelmscott is my local and I can tell you Barkby destroyed it.

Fort, I didn't know that. Do you know if it's extant?

I sent a message to Fawzi, partly to ask if was able to shed any light on recent events. He was not. He's obviously bound by an nda or is still regarded as an Insider. He did say that as a private investor, he's as frustrated by the lack of corporate comms as we are.

Personally, I regard the demands made by companies for people they make redundant to sign an nda as being totally iniquitous and it should be prohibited by law. If Fawzi is deemed still to be an Insider, I get it and it makes things far more interesting.