Member Info for JDAU

I don’t think you understand logical fallacies Ben.

You stated that because no news has been given, no progress has been made.

You then tried to place the burden of proof on me (when that is clearly not possible because of absence of evidence) to prove you wrong.

You then claimed you must be right and I must be wrong because I cannot prove you wrong by sharing evidence (evidence that doesn’t exist because news hasn’t been released yet).

You improperly shifted the burden of proof, and that is a logical fallacy.

The fact you’re now getting muddled up trying to turn it round on me is laughable.

Good job on rounding it off with a little bit of ad hominem though, really demonstrating your ability to construct multiple flawed arguments.

Sure though, I’m probably Colin Bird. Muppet.

What’s the question you’re getting so frustrated about and framing as though I’m trying to avoid Ben?

The last comprehensive update (here: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/half-year-report-i9cu219e4y9ou39.html ) gave a solid overview of all the projects including next steps- it’s fair to assume the “next steps” are what the company has been working on through this period and that will then be reported on in due course and/or when appropriate.

I’m not arguing with you that there has been news beyond what we’ve been told in the previous operational summary, I’m stating that the company has been clear about what it is working on at the moment - to me that is good communication - and I look forward to a further update when appropriate.

Jez, I’m not using a “dead language” because it’s clever - I’m using it because it’s widely recognised within the context I’m using it and it’s completely reasonable for me to refer to it in its Latin form as others would.

I.e logical fallacies in arguments

If you need me to write it out in laymen’s terms so it’s easier to understand:

People are widely agreed on rules for arguments, sometimes people make arguments that are flawed, a flawed argument, I.e one that contains a logical fallacy, does not stand up as legitimate.

It’s not about opinion, or “my view”, it’s just how it is.

Don’t try to put a dunce hat on me because YOU don’t understand basic principles of the foundation of an argument.

I’m not ignorant of that Ben. I actually agree with you that reported news of progress is what the market ‘requires’ - however, it’s important to understand that the gap between “potential” and “delivery” is where investors can make money. It’s a pretty basic risk-return principle.

XTR have communicated clearly what the next steps are re Silver King & Morocco. It is your choice what you do with that information - but outright denying it and saying that there couldn’t possibly have been any progress because they haven’t told us yet - just because you’re getting impatient, is illogical.

For the record, It’s your prerogative to find me or my write ups/research boring, I’m not going to lose sleep over your views of me.

I am patient and confident in XTR’s ability to deliver what it has clearly communicated the intention is.

I wouldn’t be invested here if I wasn’t.

It does beg the question why some of you are still here when you clearly don’t believe in the company, it’s an ability to do what it says it will do, or its projects.

I’m just going to leave this here Ben, as I’m bored of going over this statement you keep on repeating - we’ve discussed it countless times and you just keep trying to assert that the company cannot possibly have achieved anything because it has not yet been reported on.

“The appeal to ignorance fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam) claims a statement is true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. It improperly shifts the burden of proof, asserting that a lack of evidence for one side validates the other. This fallacy is invalid because "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Jackbal, I didn’t try to censor a thread, you’re repainting the narrative and what was said (conveniently on a deleted thread) to suit your agenda of painting me as the bad guy.

As I said at the time, “I’m not sure why you seem to take issue with me offering freely a piece of advice surrounding defamation law, which is that writing defamatory statements in a public forum (such as this) would arguably constitute ‘publication or communication of that (defamatory) statement to a third person’.”

Ahh yes, the guy who encourages readers to make their own minds up, posts evidence for his statements and writes logical arguments is the “idiot” trying to deceive everyone.

Meanwhile the posters that should unquestionably be believed are the ones who repetitively post negative rhetoric about the company, hurl insults when they can’t post a reasonable rebuttal in a debate and desperately beg readers to take what they say - without evidence - as fact, mainly because they have “likes”.

Seems legitimate.

You’re probably right micro cap- people shouldn’t listen to the FCA approved news or pay any attention to the financial professional who has made a career out of commenting on listed companies and stakes his reputation on the line with each article, they should instead just blindly follow what you have to say, especially with such an established background of 70 posts and 4 likes.

Need another source to at verifies my statement?

“Charles is a well-known freelance writer with a background in stock market analysis and financial services recruitment.”

Ref: https://www.ig.com/en/profile/charles-archer

“Charles Archer is an experienced financial writer specialising in monetary law. With a background in stock market and private equity analysis, he’s worked for many years as a freelance investment author, and has had articles published in a wide range of regional and national titles, both online and in print.”

Reference: https://investingstrategy.co.uk/author/charles/#:~:text=Charles%20Archer%20is%20an%20experienced,both%20online%20and%20in%20print.

I didn’t state anything about him having a degree in geology.

I said he was a well respected financial professional.

Once again Jez, demonstrating that when you can’t actually argue with what I’m saying in any kind of justified or believable way, you resort to insults.

Very mature.

Now ask yourself this, what’s more believable, company comms from an FCA regulated news source and a write up by a well respected financial professional.

Or these faceless, anonymous posters that “definitely don’t have an agenda” spouting whatever they want, unsubstantiated and often even just plain wrong - as would be seen if one were to read the actual news from the company.

Just remember when making your decision, they have likes though…

So just for clarity, you “ genuinely hope that new investors doing their research on whether to invest actually read these posts and see the truth about this stock.”

Comically you’re even just outright saying it now: you actively want people to just read the narrative on a bb and blindly follow what anonymous posters that are “definitely trustworthy” and “definitely don’t have any kind of agenda” have to say.

You know what I want?

I want people to actively ignore all of the rubbish posted on a bb, because it is typically designed to be emotive and sway uneducated decision making, look into the regulated news, look into write ups by financial professionals and then MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS.

Write up by Charles Archer: https://thatstocksguy.substack.com/p/xtract-resources-349?r=28f0br&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Latest comprehensive company update with info on all projects: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/half-year-report-i9cu219e4y9ou39.html

Believe it or not, I’d prefer for my financial decision making to be guided by regulated news direct from the company and commentary by industry professionals instead of taking what’s said on a bb by and anonymous poster as gospel because it has 6 likes.

For the record, there’s nothing fanciful about suggesting that if you’re not happy with the company - to the point of having to post daily about how badly you think it’s run - then there is no reason to remain invested.

It would actually benefit you to sell your shares if you don’t think XTR will deliver, offset the taxable loss against a gain elsewhere - and importantly, put your money in somewhere you trust to make gains.

You’re acting like I’m being problematic for offering a solution.

Nothing about my last post wast “blind optimism”, you just don’t speak for me.

My optimism stems from XTR achieving what they have communicated they will do over the past few years.

I have no reason not to believe latest statements about “next steps”.

In my view - as a LTH - XTR have provided solids comms about the projects to date, their views on what the next steps are, and I now sit patiently (and excited) waiting for the next update - that in my mind will likely pertain to production at Silver King and/or in Morocco.

If you don’t believe in the company vision or its ability to deliver: sell your shares, use the taxable loss against gains elsewhere, invest somewhere you’re confident in.

It makes zero sense to be invested in a company that you don’t believe in.

Maybe you’d like to log out and try to go on the attack with one of your other accounts, that’d probably help.

I'm sure you’ve got some more poorly constructed posts to uptick anyway (laughable that you keep pushing how important ticks are as though they add credibility).

I’ll get the tin foil hat, I’m a company stooge, I’m probably Colin bird etc.

Intelligent rebuttal as always Jez, really demonstrating your ability to produce quality posts.

It seems to be a regular occurrence, you being unable to have a reasoned, logical discussion and instead resorting to insults when you are clearly in the wrong.

No-one was coerced into anything - what a pathetic statement. Investing is a personal financial decision, grow up and own your decisions instead of whining that someone “forced you” to invest - which clearly didn’t happen.

N.b. why posters hang around repetitively regurgitating negative rhetoric instead of selling up and moving on has not been answered in any kind of way that stands up Jez.

If you don’t believe in the company vision or its ability to deliver: sell your shares, use the taxable loss against gains elsewhere, invest somewhere you’re confident in.

It’s pretty simple and there is literally no reason not to do exactly that.