Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Agreed SaS; obviously LSE think as it's their party then they can do what the want to with having to provide any answers or true guidance. So they remove informational posts for being disruptive but don't have to explain what parts of it was disruptive; how does that prevent members from making the same mistake on future posts ?
My original thread and posts earlier today were constructive and concise; they were not disruptive and were for the benefit of the board members and LSE, and yet they removed the thread. So I posted a simple summarised version just raising the same question again. Here is a copy of it:-
LSE Admin - you have shown that it's obvious you knew about the thread I started at 1:58am today. The thread was titled "Question for LSE Admin and Moderators; and is raised some concerns and questions of my self but I'm sure of other board members because the backed up the thread by posting likes on it; but you have removed it - any reason why ?
So instead of going over old ground and recanting the wording in the thread/posts then why don't you provide a simple answer to the simple question:- what parts of Hydrogen's original post were destructive ?
I also stated a reason for asking is that your answer(s) could provide guidance to other members of the GGP board in that they do not make the same mistakes and have posts deleted or face temporary/permanent bans - surely that is a good for both members and LSE.
I also said in the original thread that I understand you might not want to post an answer on the board, so I'm open to direct email exchange; and I would be grateful of receiving a response by either method.
LSE Admin - you have shown that it's obvious you knew about the thread I started at 1:58am today. The thread was titled "Question for LSE Admin and Moderators; and is raised some concerns and questions of my self but I'm sure of other board members because the backed up the thread by posting likes on it; but you have removed it - any reason why ?
So instead of going over old ground and recanting the wording in the thread/posts then why don't you provide a simple answer to the simple question:- what parts of Hydrogen's original post were destructive ?
I also stated a reason for asking is that your answer(s) could provide guidance to other members of the GGP board in that they do not make the same mistakes and have posts deleted or face temporary/permanent bans - surely that is a good for both members and LSE.
I also said in the original thread that I understand you might not want to post an answer on the board, so I'm open to direct email exchange; and I would be grateful of receiving a response by either method.
Notrader - No problem. I was going to give them until end of the afternoon to see if they respond (they probably won;t) and then email them; but if you want to do it then fine by me. I would suggest that you change the original 'off topic' comments to 'destructive'.
As I understood at that time, then he was banned, but not certain if it was an overnight ban like the others were given or maybe just a final warning. Change the wording to suit what you need.
Davie - LSE deemed a post 'disruptive and removed it. They then temporarily banned the poster for reposting the post. In protest other members reposted the post and were subsequently banned.
I started a thread 'Question For LSE Admin..' asking LSE to explain what they thought was disruptive - so members can be informed of their decision, and know not to make the same mistake.
... Here we go with your 3-6 posts '1 month old dodge account' you won't last long here, believe me.... Spreading FUD - fear uncertainty and doubt - over the bulk underground, becuase that's essentially the only unknown left that such disingenuous posts can target.
Last year we had months and months of tecnhical FUD with the GreenTool and others - who said Havieron would never be economic... but here we are 12 months later with a gigantic starter deposit, a $50m decline going in, and $50m GGP cash funding to DFS, and a published phase 1 mine PFS to take to the bank ... so NCM can get ore to Telfer ASAP.
You may be able to confuse and scare the un-researched with your manipulation, but you cannot touch Bamps or me.
For the rest of you MrBig is a skilled and devious operator who last night was attempting to exploit an ostensibly clever argument. The posts were subsequently removed this am. For the correct reasons.
What he/she was trying to do last night was apply NCM's conservative, underground stoping phase 1 mine operational costs @ $84/tonne - actually $81/tonne according to GGP using the correct exchange rate to Bulk Underground production.
The first Stoping operation has naturally has lower volumes, due to the inherent volume limitations of the Stoping technique and higher costs - ore transport to surface limitation, requirement for drill and blast / explosives, and extra material handling, and subsequence labour in back pasting costs )
But you cannot apply this to the anticipated Bulk under ground block caving grades of the larger scale deposit where the cost per tonne would be circa $25-27/tonne
This is a totally and fundamentally inappropriate comparison made by BiggL - It's like comparing two completely different company cost structures, AND specifically designed to imply that anything under 1.5g is likely to be 'uneconomic'...
And It's total BS becuase we ALL know that Cadia is economic down to 0.4g/t Au... specifically due the bulk efficiencies of the operational costs.
And very much like comparing and interweaving the cost structure of building Ferraris directly to Ford Fiestas -
IE both make massive profits, BUT in TOTALLY different ways . Obviously You cannot make a profit building Ford fiestas in the way you build a Ferrari though. That would be loss making.
That's the best analogy I can come up with. And that is the tactic of this poster. Always Happy to smash them into touch.
Expect Multiple shorter accounts with a very obvious agenda.s
Regarding bulk underground : The only question is will this be a block cave or a more selective sub level cave...? Anyone with mining nouse can see that.. The grade in those breccia are nothing short of sensational. And a mine in their own right.
Tymers Today 19:51
"Lse will be loving this . Huge amount of posts matters not what the content is as long as its within the rules."
If ithe content was within the rules then why was it removed in the first place?
As posted:-
Here we go with your 3-6 posts '1 month old dodge account' you won't last long here, believe me.... Spreading FUD - fear uncertainty and doubt - over the bulk underground, becuase that's essentially the only unknown left that such disingenuous posts can target.
Last year we had months and months of tecnhical FUD with the GreenTool and others - who said Havieron would never be economic... but here we are 12 months later with a gigantic starter deposit, a $50m decline going in, and $50m GGP cash funding to DFS, and a published phase 1 mine PFS to take to the bank ... so NCM can get ore to Telfer ASAP.
You may be able to confuse and scare the un-researched with your manipulation, but you cannot touch Bamps or me.
For the rest of you MrBig is a skilled and devious operator who last night was attempting to exploit an ostensibly clever argument. The posts were subsequently removed this am. For the correct reasons.
What he/she was trying to do last night was apply NCM's conservative, underground stoping phase 1 mine operational costs @ $84/tonne - actually $81/tonne according to GGP using the correct exchange rate to Bulk Underground production.
The first Stoping operation has naturally has lower volumes, due to the inherent volume limitations of the Stoping technique and higher costs - ore transport to surface limitation, requirement for drill and blast / explosives, and extra material handling, and subsequence labour in back pasting costs )
But you cannot apply this to the anticipated Bulk under ground block caving grades of the larger scale deposit where the cost per tonne would be circa $25-27/tonne
This is a totally and fundamentally inappropriate comparison made by BiggL - It's like comparing two completely different company cost structures, AND specifically designed to imply that anything under 1.5g is likely to be 'uneconomic'...
And It's total BS becuase we ALL know that Cadia is economic down to 0.4g/t Au... specifically due the bulk efficiencies of the operational costs.
And very much like comparing and interweaving the cost structure of building Ferraris directly to Ford Fiestas -
IE both make massive profits, BUT in TOTALLY different ways . Obviously You cannot make a profit building Ford fiestas in the way you build a Ferrari though. That would be loss making.
That's the best analogy I can come up with. And that is the tactic of this poster. Always Happy to smash them into touch.
Expect Multiple shorter accounts with a very obvious agenda.s
Regarding bulk underground : The only question is will this be a block cave or a more selective sub level cave...? Anyone with mining nouse can see that.. The grade in those breccia are nothing short of sensational. And a mine in their
Cookie/Matt- not sure on T212 workings but maybe you can see if you can set a high forward sell instruction - i.e. £2 (maybe not sure they'll allow this high) and this should prevent your shares from being loaned out to shorters. But I would check on their T&C's first before any action.
(Just a suggestion to check and not advice)
The Learner- no doubt they'll dish out some bans but surely they realise the support is for a genuine member who tries to provide information to the best of his ability and tries to pose a seasoned argument against the unresearched posters with a negative agenda.
I'm also sure that LSE want the best for their members and generally would want happy members as part if the LSE collective; so in my opinion they should do more to identify the Trolls in a quicker way and close down the accounts and prevent the Trolls trying to keep spreading FUD.
Trying to make this on topic:-
It's intelligent thinking for an individual or group to start a forum site for Greatland Gold, where private individuals (investors) come and post data and research on Greatland Gold and then the individual or group can harvest the data and maybe make investment decisions for themselves.
When Greatland Gold shares get popular then they could also throw in some of their own hand picked people, into the chat, to positively or negatively comment and push people for deeper researched information or actually influence their thinking. Of course comments on a chat are not going to influence the share price if Greatland Gold; but maybe outside interests like brokers, MM's, etc look at the chat and garner thinking and sentiment which maybe could influence their actions at times.
Just an opinion and no research or information to back it up.
Here we go with your 3-6 posts '1 month old dodge account' you won't last long here, believe me.... Spreading FUD - fear uncertainty and doubt - over the bulk underground, becuase that's essentially the only unknown left that such disingenuous posts can target.
Last year we had months and months of tecnhical FUD with the GreenTool and others - who said Havieron would never be economic... but here we are 12 months later with a gigantic starter deposit, a $50m decline going in, and $50m GGP cash funding to DFS, and a published phase 1 mine PFS to take to the bank ... so NCM can get ore to Telfer ASAP.
You may be able to confuse and scare the un-researched with your manipulation, but you cannot touch Bamps or me.
For the rest of you MrBig is a skilled and devious operator who last night was attempting to exploit an ostensibly clever argument. The posts were subsequently removed this am. For the correct reasons.
What he/she was trying to do last night was apply NCM's conservative, underground stoping phase 1 mine operational costs @ $84/tonne - actually $81/tonne according to GGP using the correct exchange rate to Bulk Underground production.
The first Stoping operation has naturally has lower volumes, due to the inherent volume limitations of the Stoping technique and higher costs - ore transport to surface limitation, requirement for drill and blast / explosives, and extra material handling, and subsequence labour in back pasting costs )
But you cannot apply this to the anticipated Bulk under ground block caving grades of the larger scale deposit where the cost per tonne would be circa $25-27/tonne
This is a totally and fundamentally inappropriate comparison made by BiggL - It's like comparing two completely different company cost structures, AND specifically designed to imply that anything under 1.5g is likely to be 'uneconomic'...
And It's total BS becuase we ALL know that Cadia is economic down to 0.4g/t Au... specifically due the bulk efficiencies of the operational costs.
And very much like comparing and interweaving the cost structure of building Ferraris directly to Ford Fiestas -
IE both make massive profits, BUT in TOTALLY different ways . Obviously You cannot make a profit building Ford fiestas in the way you build a Ferrari though. That would be loss making.
That's the best analogy I can come up with. And that is the tactic of this poster. Always Happy to smash them into touch.
Expect Multiple shorter accounts with a very obvious agenda.s
Regarding bulk underground : The only question is will this be a block cave or a more selective sub level cave...? Anyone with mining nouse can see that.. The grade in those breccia are nothing short of sensational. And a mine in their own right.
Bamps - if you read this then just providing some clarity on why I seen the posts as I did, yesterday:-
hydrogen Sun 14:50
Anyone else detecting a case of... "The Enemy Within"
going on here today? Its subtle but it's setting my spidey senses off again...
Now 'creeping' to be seen to be 'onside' would you say? After been "spotted" by Jerry.
I can detect another Rat in the vicinity
(and it's not you Monty).
GL all genuine Holders.
Recommend (14)Report Post
thedoors Sun 15:00
@Hydro
That’s a bit rough on Bamps
Recommend (4)Report Post
thedoors Sun 15:21
Hydro - I missed out the lol or the wink emoji
Was kidding ;)
Thanks for the share of info earlier
Recommend (4)
Bamps21 Sun 16:18
Never been called “ the enemy within “ before
How exciting what shall I get up to next :)))
So that's why I think the enemy within comment was totally in jest.
Totally sad news about Craig Brown unexpectedly passing away, and only 51 years old.
I appreciate this is not GGP related but comment and respect is warranted for a person who worked for a company with similarities to GGP in that it's the same industry, and it's a UK listed company carry out exploration work in Australia. Plus also some members invested here are invested in ECR also.
After yesterday's strange day of silly posts and this mornings musing and support for specific poster/posters, then I do think people should realise that some things are more important than money and petty squabbling on a public chat site, and perspective is sometimes required as a good reminder of life balance and what is really important.
Bamps - I read the post within the context of the conversation as a jokey tongue in cheek remark by implying that the least expected poster is 'the enemy' and I'm sure it wasn't intended as it read.
Words in text are sometimes easily misread and not taken as the poster/sender intended.
I nearly fell out with one of my best friends a few months back over texts on WhatsApp, and when we discussed it face to face then it was easy to see that if we were bantering in the pub then the comments would have been made with a wry smile or similar facial expression and taken as the banter it was intended to be.
Viking and Red, I do agree with you guys on MDT. Looking back on their history then it would appear he/she has a very good grasp of the English language, so should have no problem understanding it.
The subtlety of their negative spin does come through on some of their posts. Classic, look at me I'm all positive, but then the little jab sneaks in. Sort of reminds me of Elise.