Member Info for crawshaw

That's a classic!

"Mag 8"

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

<meta name="description" content="Bridging the gap between Traditional Finance &amp; Blockchain Technology . Currently upgrading — launching soon.">

<meta name="keywords" content="photonics, optics, laser technology, optical engineering, light-based technology, quantum optics, QG Photonics, VGOLD"

What a mess.

Www.qgphotonics.com

"the reveal will be worth it."

Makes sense 😅

The sky is blue.

Cimbom - "Why are QGP not appearing on the register for the Cayman Islands you posted please if they have billions of AUM?"

Anyone?

> https://ibb.co/LDzS1snd

Some very worryingly false statements in that TG

"the $200m deal has been scrutinised by multiple FCA approved legal teams and lawyers"

Has it?

The Result: 404 error

🤣🤣🤣🤣

"Nice to have you back PP1"

"Thank you BashM, you are the kindest."

🥰

I can't believe you lied to us all about First Sentinel PP1. I really thought you were telling the truth this time.

This information is market sensitive and should be communicated through the normal channels Bash.

Not via private emails, private Zoom calls, or via the TG.

"By stating we gone from 24p to 6p. You are suggesting it is alarming."

No I'm not? It was in response to you saying "it doesn’t impact the sp lol".

"You are talking like we have had an exodus of sellers"

Where have I suggested that, Bash?

Perhaps Takecare is referring to the dilution from ~70m shares to ~250m shares prior to the QGP deal?

He did state "the past few years."?

"I mean pointless flagging reds, if it doesn’t impact the sp lol"

No one's trying to impact the sp on this board Bash, people are raising genuine concerns and asking genuine questions, all of which have gone unanswered.

The sp has dropped from 24p upon the lifting of suspension, to 6p now. I'd consider that an impact?

Your beloved 'well-searched' PP1 continuously spread false information which has all been proven incorrect too.

Takecare said "having diluted the share massively and repeatably in the past few years." - This is factually correct statement.

We're going round in circles here Bash, can you answer this or not?

> This is exactly the problem Bash. What exactly was 'binding' in the HoT? Why were the HoT never published? What came to light during their "extensive due diligence"? Why were DMC "not in a position to complete the transaction"?

There's no transparency, and infinite unanswered questions.

"did you look into brining HoT"

How does one brine HoTs Bash, in saltwater?

"I just keep proving you wrong"

You haven't proved anything wrong Bash? Is this the same sort of scenario as when you gave GG 'a good kicking'?