Member Info for JDAU

Anything else... I don't think so Jez, mate.

I think we've pretty much covered it, haven't we?

You've made your views explicitly clear, I feel like I've done the same.

I guess the reader can decide who's behaviour is reasonable and who's isn't.

"You also assume a lot, like people being thick and ignorant and not understanding neurodiversity for example"

For the record, Jez, mate.

I don't take any issue with someone not understanding something, it doesn't make you ignorant or thick to not know something.

I would however argue:

It does make you a bit thick if the facts are presented to you and you still arbitrarily don't agree... with the facts (which by definition, are not up for debate).

It does make you ignorant if you're not only willing but seemingly proud to insult someone because of a character trait you clearly know very little about.

I'm not trying to fool anyone Jez, I state my view very clearly and it's really not a very complicated one.

I am not assuming anything, I am following a logical path of discussion.

You decided, instead of tackling my points head on in a discussion, to take a stab at my character.

That is underhanded, poor debate etiquette and frankly shows you up as being ignorant and rather incapable of intellectual sabre rattling without resorting to ad hominem - which is a logical fallacy - in layman's terms, you have used a flaw in reasoning that makes your argument invalid, even if it 'seems convincing'.

You quite obviously insulted me, it is absolutely justified for me to bite back and call you out on your unacceptable behaviour.

As an... me throughout... typos, you get the point.

You clearly aimed the comment "Definitely on the spectrum." directly at me. I called you out on it, you said "that's what you get with me, I don't hide my true intent" - you didn't say: 'sorry, actually that was out of line' - you decided to double down on what I would deem as unacceptable behaviour.

What so you're allowed to sling mud but can't take it when I sling it right back?

I feel justified to shame, patronise and belittle you as you shouldn't feel good about attempting to mock someone for being neurodiverse, that demonstrates quite clearly to me that you are ignorant. I do pity that.

How do you stop people being ignorant? Educate them, hence me suggesting you should do some reading on the subject so you don't come across (once again) as san ignorant person who doesn't know what they are talking about.

As I said, it is also comical to me that the very thing you are insulting realistically has benefitted my throughout my entire life, especially when it comes to finances and investing.

You are correct, I am straight shooting, not subtle.

Ibzsun, If you want something more relevant to read, this is a pretty comprehensive write up: https://thatstocksguy.substack.com/p/xtract-resources-349

Just for reference Jez, mate here's a summary of the condition you are insulting me for and/or using to try to make me look less credible:

Strengths associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often include intense focus (hyperfocus), exceptional attention to detail, strong memory for facts, pattern recognition, unique and creative problem-solving, deep passion for specific interests (special interests) leading to expertise, honesty, integrity, and reliability, alongside a strong sense of justice and loyalty. Many individuals with ASD also possess strong visual skills and logical thinking, contributing to innovative perspectives.

A good info source is: https://www.autistica.org.uk/what-is-autism/autistic-strengths

Feel free to do some more reading on the subject, as much like with XTR, you don't seem to have read up on it and don't know what you're talking about.

Considering I'm clearly 'such a sarcastic character' I'm surprised you didn't pick up on the sarcastic use of the word 'mate'.

The fact that you would use neurodiversity or 'being on the spectrum' as an insult, and then seem to wear that fact that you'd do that proudly is odd to me.

I have my own view on the kind of person that would do that but I guess that's up to the reader to decide how acceptable your behaviour is.

As an aside, the fact that you think that being on the spectrum would put me at a disadvantage in the world of investing which surrounds pattern recognition, data, analysis, detail and numbers shows me you really are quite ignorant about the neurodivergence you are insulting. In a quite comical way.

Yes Jezzoo, the company has probably done nothing for the last quarter and nothing since the fund raise and they will probably do it all in the morning before the news release.. or just not at all, right? Because that's how it works according to you.

Or, the more likely scenario:

Xtr have told us what they have done, they have told us what they will do next, they will update us when they 'what we will do next' has been done.

Guess what - this will probably send you into a serious meltdown.. once they've achieved what they've literally announced to market as next steps, they will most likely... tell us what they are going to do next.

Crazy that a company would give a solid operational report in a half-year report, follow it up by stating what they'll do next and then wait until they achieve those objectives to update the market. That's just completely unacceptable.

Sure Jez, you didn't mention me, you just aimed your insult "Definitely on the spectrum." directly at me and expected me to act like it was fine?

Showing your true colours... mate.

So I'm like a 5 year old because I'm demanding accurate representation of a company I own a significant portion of?

Reads a lot like you're not able to effectively argue your point as you're in the wrong and subsequently you're resorting to personal insults as though that somehow discredits my argument.

Let's look at the whole quote again, not just the parts you've chosen that don't offer the guidance of the full quote in context, shall we?

"Executive Chairman Colin Bird commented: "This fundraising has been initiated in order to enable us to continue to develop our mine project in Morocco and invest in our joint venture with our partners in Silverking in Zambia and in particular, to complete construction of a processing plant at Silverking whilst continuing with exploration on the general licence area. The Board expects that the Silverking plant will be commissioned and mining start in 2026 to take advantage of current copper prices. In Morrocco, exploration will continue while Government approval is obtained to redevelop the Amghas mine and construct a floatation plant."

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/fundraising-for-1632000000-r13pf1l7vjv9fpn.html

You want to know what they have ACTUALLY DONE, and seemingly need it in fewer words WITH LOTS OF CAPS SO YOU CAN READ IT, correct?

THEY HAVE ACTUALLY RAISED £2m BEFORE EXPENSES AND IT WILL BE USED TO:

- PAY FOR COMPLETING A PROCESSING PLANT AT SILVERKING

- CONSTRUCT A FLOATATION PLANT IN MOROCCO

- CONTINUE EXPLORATION

XTR HAVE NOT UPDATED THE MARKET ON SILVERKING BECAUSE THE PROCESSING PLANT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED YET.

XTR HAVE NOT UPDATED THE MARKET ON MOROCCO BECAUSE THEY ARE WAITING FOR GOVERNMENT APPROVAL.

XTR CANNOT UPDATE THE MARKET ON THINGS THAT HAVE NOT HAPPENED YET.

XTR HAVE UPDATED THE MARKET TO SAY THAT THESE THINGS ARE ABOUT TO HAPPEN.

XTR WILL UPDATE THE MARKET WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN.

It's not that hard and I would argue that at this point, you are being deliberately obtuse.

The fact that you would use that as a way of attempting to insult me Jez, says a lot about you.

Once again, playing the man not the ball.

You are correct, next steps is not an operational update.

Until l the point where something has happened that can be reported on and an operational update can be given, it’s insane to demand anything other than being told what is happening next .

Since we’re stating the obvious:

- To state there has been no news in 114 days is a lie.

- The subject title is “no news in…” not “no operational update in…” - so you’re arguing with me as though I’m wrong when you’re starting from a completely flawed premise.

Again Ben, if they are waiting on government approval before being able to crack on with the operation, how do you suppose they could give an operational update?

I’m not being “obtuse” or “enthusiastic” - I’m explaining very clearly, with evidence, that Microcap is wrong:

A) there has in fact been news in the time period that Microcap is weirdly keeping a daily tally of - so that is clearly an incorrect and/or misleading tally.

B) that news did in fact tell us the next steps for multiple projects.

The fundraising RNS gave a very clear update about the next steps on 2 of the projects, and what the funds would be used for. You are wrong.

…and just as an FYI - considering you’re clearly trying to make that number look as big as possible to support the rhetoric that ‘we’re being kept in the dark’ - even though we’re not...

The date you’re clearly counting from for ‘last news’ was Monday, September 29th 2025. It is now Thursday, January 22nd. That was 115 days ago.

If you’re going to try and keep some weird running tally that nobody asked for from a piece of news you’ve arbitrarily decided was the ‘last news’ - even though it wasn’t - at least get the number of days correct.

We had news in November.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/

November was not 114 days ago.

Fundraising where:

“Executive Chairman Colin Bird commented: "This fundraising has been initiated in order to enable us to continue to develop our mine project in Morocco and invest in our joint venture with our partners in Silverking in Zambia and in particular, to complete construction of a processing plant at Silverking whilst continuing with exploration on the general licence area. The Board expects that the Silverking plant will be commissioned and mining start in 2026 to take advantage of current copper prices. In Morrocco, exploration will continue while Government approval is obtained to redevelop the Amghas mine and construct a floatation plant."

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/fundraising-for-1632000000-r13pf1l7vjv9fpn.html

And a director share purchase: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/directorpdmr-shareholding-i8u2gcfycpzaxtu.html

Those don’t count though, right?

I’ve actually spent most of the day offering up links to FCA regulated information that directly opposes the negative rhetoric you and the gang are trying to push, presumably to get a cheaper buy in for the next trade.

I’m not “setting the rules of engagement”, I’m saying: “feel free to keep posting absolute nonsense, I will keep making sure that people have access to the relevant information so they can make their own minds up about what you post” - it is clear to me, however, when I read the info I am sharing, that you are posting rubbish.

At the end of the day, (and I positively encourage this:) people can read and decide for themselves who’s straight shooting and who’s telling porkies…. Pretty hard for me fabricate anything when I’m posting direct quotes though…

For the record, I believe It’s perfectly reasonable for me as a shareholder to use information originally published by the company to show that some posters here are clearly using underhanded tactics to misrepresent the company.

How is me posting links to RNS’s that give information on company operations ‘ramping’?

If you’re seriously going down the age old ramper/basher route, isn’t it ‘bashing’ to misrepresent information already in the public domain with a view to knocking confidence in the company and ultimately effecting the share price?

Sure though, being positive about a share (crazy that I’m optimistic about a company I choose to invest my money in, right?) - by sharing parts of RNS’s relevant to discussion - could cost people money but being overly negative, arguably in a dishonest way, couldn’t possibly?

Do you even read what you write?

I’m also not sure I subscribe to you setting me a ‘test’ to try and ‘win the debate’ when you wouldn’t even answer a direct question because you’re in the wrong.

You’re expecting me to now sift through your nonsense posts and then the relevant RNS’s to try and justify how something you said was a lie. As you said before Jez, ‘you are going over things I and others have adequately covered’ and ‘I can’t be bothered’.

I’ve done exactly this before and you typically go quiet for a bit then come back posting the same negative rhetoric as though nothing happened and you didn’t get found out for talking nonsense - why would I waste my time?

This isn’t taskmaster mate, and you don’t get to set the rules of engagement.

I have, over the years, repetitively encouraged readers to do their own research and not just to be told what to think by anonymous posters on a bb, this is why I provide direct quotes and links referencing where I’m getting information from.

That is more than can be said for yourself and plenty of other posters here.

You’re right, it’s just downright out of order for me to be angry at someone trying to trash something I own by being dishonest about it on a regular basis. How dare I provide evidence that shows someone to be a liar.

I should let you guys just say whatever you want about the company unchallenged and effectively re-write information that’s in the public domain as you see fit, right?

“It's you who are doing the bullying, you won't accept anyone's opinion other than your own” - this isn’t about my opinion Jez, it’s about some posters on this bb (including yourself) posting opinion as fact and/or misrepresenting the company on a public forum that potential investors clearly (rightly or wrongly) use to gauge sentiment.

If there are 10 people in a room with curtains covering the windows, and there is a collective plan to tell the new person that walks into the room that it’s raining outside, the new person might very well think that on balance, it’s probably raining outside.

I’m just opening the curtains so people can see for themselves instead of taking anything written on a bb (by anyone, including myself) as gospel.