Member Info for dcode

About Jason: see below or Maru, where he posted on TG. The phrase "Must admit I always try..." is the giveaway. It’s self-referential and seeks validation for the effort of setting the bar, rather than taking responsibility for the fact that the company didn't clear it.

In short: It signifies a preoccupation with self-image. Whether it's clinical narcissism or just a high-level coping mechanism, it reveals a leader who is more interested in being seen as a high-achiever than actually being one.

On TG someone called Philip asked Jason about the accounts and the admin a Dave N replies by pointing back to a non-answer post by Jason. When will these TG cult groups be answerable and actually behave like godly Jason demands? With quality, respect and factual debate. imo long time gone to the TG groups such as the one with Admin Dave N. Jason will you lance that boil and open the group up to real debate or why do you engage there when it is against your stated principles and morals, can’t circle the square without some real honesty.

Smh

Ambitious?

Dunno

Lol maybe

Fair enough

Let’s hope

Would help

Up and down

Fair enough

Thanks

From CHATGPT but make up your own minds. Who knows? ChatGPT says It is a fascinating bit of "CEO-speak." To understand whether it’s narcissism, delusion, or just standard corporate posturing, we have to look at the gap between the intent and the result.

Here is a breakdown of what that statement typically signifies in the context of a "failure CEO."

1. The "Shield of Intent"

When a leader fails but emphasizes their "high benchmarks," they are often using their intentions as a shield against their outcomes.

• Significance: It’s a psychological defense mechanism. By focusing on the ambition of the goal, they attempt to frame the failure as a result of the goal being "too grand" for others to achieve, rather than a lack of competence or execution on their part.

• The Subtext: "I didn't fail because I'm bad at my job; I failed because I care too much about excellence."

2. Is it Narcissism?

It certainly leans that way. Narcissism in leadership often manifests as Grandiosity.

• The "Visionary" Trap: Narcissists often believe that having a "vision" or setting a "benchmark" is the same thing as doing the work.

• Externalizing Blame: If the benchmark wasn't met, a narcissistic leader rarely looks inward. They imply that the market, the employees, or the "shareholders' expectations" were the variables that failed to align with their superior standards.

3. Is it Delusion?

This depends on the decoupling of reality.

• Operational Blindness: If a CEO sets a "high benchmark" that is mathematically or operationally impossible given the company's resources, it is delusional.

• The "Shareholder" Virtue Signal: Invoking "shareholders" is a classic way to claim the moral high ground. It suggests they were a martyr for the cause of profit, even if their actions actually destroyed value.

The Verdict

The phrase "Must admit I always try..." is the giveaway. It’s self-referential and seeks validation for the effort of setting the bar, rather than taking responsibility for the fact that the company didn't clear it.

In short: It signifies a preoccupation with self-image. Whether it's clinical narcissism or just a high-level coping mechanism, it reveals a leader who is more interested in being seen as a high-achiever than actually being one.

What to make of a CEO of a company that has missed every target it has set multiple times and yet very same CEO is saying this BS. Can’t take that seriously or indeed might have to question if it is a mentally rational comment to make. Seems off the scale mad to me.

“Must admit I always try and set a high benchmark as to what I want to see delivered on behalf of shareholders.”

Happy to engage as I believe all of you are aware. However it needs to be consistent with our regulatory requirements and also consistent with what we are looking to incorporate into our continually updated social media policy and terms of engagement.

A few key points of which I have strong personal, note personal opinions, on include:

1. Strive to Ensure Quality

I want to work and I will strive to engage with platforms that accept responsibility for the content they carry on their sites.

This includes content that is moderated and respectful of content owners’ rights and consistent with the values that many of the stakeholders and staff I work with strive to uphold.

I will, as I am sure you would understand, avoid platforms that promote hatred or division. It is my personal expectation that engagement is only on platforms that maintain a corporate responsibility to monitor and remove unacceptable content, comply with all applicable and relevant laws and regulations, and operate in accordance with industry standards and in line with generally accepted public morals and again a key focus on mine ‘values’

2. Platforms that Promote Respect

I will naturally avoid and limit working with or on platforms that create conversation environments that are negative by nature, and instead, I will look to work with and seek out those platforms that foster balanced and constructive discourse, and civil commentary.

I don’t believe anyone here can argue with 2 such key areas.

As said I am fine for engagement on the basis that it is in line with and follows regulatory requirements, and that people recognise what I can and what I am clearly unable to say or comment on.

As I hope many of you know, I am not looking for an environment where negative criticism or sentiment is washed away, but rather want an appropriate platform where it is a civil and open and transparent environment suitable for all to exchange views and ask questions and where there is a clear recognition of responsibility and regulatory requirements.

In a nutshell if you can’t say it to my face, put your name to it, back it up with clear facts and act in an appropriate and professional manner then my time is better spent elsewhere.

Likewise if you couldn’t say it in-front of your mother-in-law then don’t say it.

Trust that clarifies.

Happy to engage as I believe all of you are aware. However it needs to be consistent with our regulatory requirements and also consistent with what we are looking to incorporate into our continually updated social media policy and terms of engagement.

A few key points of which I have strong personal, note personal opinions, on include:

1. Strive to Ensure Quality

I want to work and I will strive to engage with platforms that accept responsibility for the content they carry on their sites.

This includes content that is moderated and respectful of content owners’ rights and consistent with the values that many of the stakeholders and staff I work with strive to uphold.

I will, as I am sure you would understand, avoid platforms that promote hatred or division. It is my personal expectation that engagement is only on platforms that maintain a corporate responsibility to monitor and remove unacceptable content, comply with all applicable and relevant laws and regulations, and operate in accordance with industry standards and in line with generally accepted public morals and again a key focus on mine ‘values’

2. Platforms that Promote Respect

I will naturally avoid and limit working with or on platforms that create conversation environments that are negative by nature, and instead, I will look to work with and seek out those platforms that foster balanced and constructive discourse, and civil commentary.

I don’t believe anyone here can argue with 2 such key areas.

As said I am fine for engagement on the basis that it is in line with and follows regulatory requirements, and that people recognise what I can and what I am clearly unable to say or comment on.

As I hope many of you know, I am not looking for an environment where negative criticism or sentiment is washed away, but rather want an appropriate platform where it is a civil and open and transparent environment suitable for all to exchange views and ask questions and where there is a clear recognition of responsibility and regulatory requirements.

In a nutshell if you can’t say it to my face, put your name to it, back it up with clear facts and act in an appropriate and professional manner then my time is better spent elsewhere.

Likewise if you couldn’t say it in-front of your mother-in-law then don’t say it.

Trust that clarifies.

Jason has rejoined the Telegram group so stand by your beds for updates

Like Wrighty says on the losses, we needs nights like this, and so we also needs shares like this...isnt it

15p,

not even main market Peter Edwards, it is AIM, surprised you even get that wrong.

SKA investment has been a total disaster for us private investors so far, when might it turn upwards?

telegram group policed imo to avoid any negatives, who ever the goalkeepers are, so a waste of time

isn't it time for a bit more direct talk and objective viewpoint,

and what has Lloyd ever done for this company? Even Jason seems to be exasperated with him or am I misreading it?

we bought in at what 15p 12p, 10p (Mickey MacNamara we all know is he said at about 30p before any averaging down),

where is the 2m loan from AUO, where are the AUO/QVB shares?

when will we see 15p again?

Neo not owning the asset, neo not having paid for it, neo currently not having the funds to do so, wouldn't be normal to have them in possession of the asset and doing stuff now would it,

will stand back and wait for the horde to jump down my neck saying brewer is different, but I dont believe so

I always try to be objective despite my huge losses on Brewer companies