Member Info for JDAU

Sometimes it takes a long reply to unequivocally prove an idiotic one liner wrong - and you lot just keep flinging those idiotic one liners. Note that I’m REPLYING though, I’m not starting these ridiculous, factually incorrect discussions.

I don’t post about how great XTR is on a daily basis, but when someone acts like things are falling apart I will happily correct them, display my evidence and call them out for misrepresenting things.

You lot however DO post on a daily basis about “how bad” everything is, even in spite of positive update after positive update. Interesting, no?

How can I push an agenda by simply replying to people who push repetitive, negative rhetoric to the point that they’ll just deny anything operationally positive that the company achieves?!

A poster (Microcap) on Monday literally lied straight up about timelines of the project being discussed in the interview the day before and several of you unequivocally backed that poster up and refused to listen to logic or indeed the interview that was clearly completely contrary to what said poster wrote.

I demonstrated blatant proof that what the poster said was complete nonsense as they effectively were lying about what CB said in the interview. You all still denied it.

To me, that is incredibly dodgy and says a lot about the people trying to perpetuate the bs, yourself included.

If you need a simple (not long) answer because you’ve made it clear before that you don’t want to read anything longer than a twitter post:

It takes less effort to throw a stone than to build the wall that defends from it.

The issue you’re having Jez is that I’m not tabling an argument where anything is up for debate.

I’m defending myself from a stupid, baseless accusation which (what a surprise) is tantamount to a lie, crafted in order to attempt to discredit me.

The problem with a lie is that it is easily exposed.

I’d have thought that lesson may have been learned yesterday.

There is no ‘counter’ argument to what I’ve posted because I’m refuting a false accusation, not having a discussion… unless, like I’ve said before, you just want to double down on an incorrect position.

Ps. Kind of pathetic that you’re still trying to rage bait me

This weird attempted witch hunt against me for pointing out the facts is almost comical (way to prove my point about a blatant clique of posters with their own agenda who don’t like being challenged and will gang up on anyone who speaks out against them btw).

You realise I’m not going to back down from an anything where I categorically know that what I’m saying is the truth - and can prove it.

Re your post, I’m pretty sure I was reminding a poster (who was posting rather unprofessional derogatory and defamatory comments about CB) that this bb constitutes a public forum where, for instance, rules on defamation exist.

I wasn’t “censoring” anything by stating a fact about the law.

You’re now trying to act like I’m “policing the board” just because I am happy to challenge some of the nonsense posts here and logically demonstrate some of the posts on the bb are complete bs, out of line (legally speaking) or a misrepresentation of information that is available.

Feel free to keep coming at me though, you’re really leaning into this group mentality playbook that I’ve been highlighting for months as a problem on this bb.

What makes me suspicious is that some posters here don’t seem to be able to recognise fact as fact no matter how clearly it is proven in debate and instead consistently try to write their own rhetoric about the company while resorting to insulting/attempting to discredit anyone who dares support it (as is being demonstrated by your own post).

Draw your own conclusions there…

What you are stating - as a clear attempt to discredit me - and how it happened, is not representative of the truth of what actually happened - as so often appears to be the problem with some of you lot.

You are casually, once again, trying to throw mud my way because it’s easier than constructing a logical argument.

Again, play the ball not the man, stop being lazy.

Ps. You should probably get some more of the “definitely legitimate” posters to try and discredit me - maybe then it’ll stick.

Who knows, maybe if enough of you say it, it’ll be true, right?

You’re missing the point (again) Jez.

My personal views on how legitimate you / a few other posters are is not the focus here - the main point is that you consistently put out flawed arguments, use group mentality to act like flawed arguments are correct (again, that’s a logical fallacy) and then hurl insults when the debate gets too hard for you.

You seem very keen on dragging me into an argument Jez and frankly, I can’t be bothered with you or this child like mud slinging match you’re desperately trying to pull me into.

I’ve said what I had to say and I stand by it, once again (no surprises) you’re resorting immediately to insults and playing the man, not the ball.

Considering you are demonstrating no attempt at an adult conversation I think I’m done here.

Have a good day, mate.

It is comical to me that you genuinely seem to believe and/or keep pushing the agenda that if a small handful of people state something that is categorically not true, then somehow it becomes true.

You rely on strength in numbers rather than strength of logic or evidence in argument and to be absolutely, 100% crystal clear:

That is a logical fallacy. Just because there are several posters ‘in agreement’ of the same crafted rhetoric does not mean that the collective are automatically correct.

For the record, and since you love Latin so much, that’s called the bandwagon fallacy (or Argumentum ad Populum) - I suggest you Google it rather than constantly telling me that numbers = strength of argument as to be blunt, it’s making you look like an idiot.

Feel free to mock me ‘pompously’ using Latin words you don’t understand the significance of though, that’ll probably help your case.

As an aside, personally, I question the legitimacy of several of the alias’s you consistently rely on for likes / support towards what are otherwise your incredibly weak arguments.

You’re completely missing the point as usual Jez.

I’m not sure how Narcissism or being pompous has come into it, but just according to you, I’m a pompous, narcissist who is definitely autistic, Colin Bird, Keir Starmer, a clown, a ****head and a fool…. and most of those were today.

Any other insults to add to the list you silly little man?

Does it make you feel good hurling abuse at strangers on the internet? Do you realise that it’s pretty clear to anyone reading that you resort to these kind of insults when your argument runs out of steam?

It’s actually whole heartedly pathetic and I sincerely wish you would grow up.

Point is that you choose to resort to insults and name calling instead of tackling the actual issue at hand by having a reasonable, logical conversation about why something someone said was not factual and bluntly, not acceptable.

At this point Jez, think what you want, but you’re either in agreement with what I’ve stated today, or you’re siding with someone who blatantly lied about what was said in yesterday’s podcast.

For the record: It’s not about me needing anything, having to be correct or wanting to be admired - It’s about the facts - you know, the things you tend to ignore?

I can link them again if you need to re-listen.

So for clarity, we’re FINALLY in agreement that Microcap lied about what was stated in the interview.

But do you seriously think it’s acceptable to talk to me the way you have all day, to just breeze over the main point of the contention throughout the entirety of today’s discussion - which inexplicably I’ve had to try and argue against with several of you all day - as though it’s not important and you’re now just going to immediately trying to change the goalposts in a desperate attempt to save face?

You insult me, call me a fool, state I’m working for the company, say I’m on a high horse and now finally - because you know what you were posting was idiotic you reluctantly concede the point of debate and then try to immediately change topic.

No apology? No withdrawal of the personal attacks, just a change of direction and a lack of admission of fault.

No thanks.

Re company operations I have my own views and I’m perfectly content with the company comms and project timelines. I’m also patient enough to wait for the next RNS and happy that Colin has given us a verbal overview via the interview of where we are in the interim.

Ps. Comments about what is likely to be done with the oxide material were made in the interview and I suspect will be firmed up when the RNS lands. You can choose to believe that or not, as is your prerogative.

Pps. If I didn’t trust what was being said in RNS’s / interviews, I wouldn’t remain invested here… because that would be idiotic.

As I feel I’ve made very clear Jez, I take no issue with someone having a different opinion, I take issue with posters misrepresenting company communications. I’ve been pretty specific about that in today’s debate.

I don’t feel I can order you about, I’m simply meeting you halfway with the respect we just love to give each other.

I’m asking you to answer a straightforward question, very plainly, since you seem to take issue with basically everything I ever post regardless of the evidence I provide or indeed the level of inaccuracy in others posts which typically is what gets me posting in the first place.

You are refusing to answer that question and instead attempting to repeatedly insult me - and I’m supposed to what, just take it?

To be absolutely, 100% crystal clear - a poster today wrote that operational timelines had been pushed to the end of the year - which in no way was communicated by the company.

To me that is a lie.

It’s insane that you’re still acting like I’m the one in the wrong here. But sure, I’m the fool.

Again, cut the insults, they don’t make you appear smart, or good at debating. Stop acting like a child.

Way to prove a point Jez. Seems like you’re more than happy to throw insults at me but can’t take them coming right back.

So are you going to answer the question, or are you just going to insult me and run away from the debate because you know you’re holding an indefensible position?

It’s pretty simple: Microcap’s post at 11am specifically stated that Colin had pushed timelines to the end of the year - was this:

A) A lie?

B) A truthful representation of what was said in the interview?

There would be no confusion if posters such as yourself didn’t wrongly represent the company and lie about what was stated in an interview.

The interview Colin gave was useful and clear - it is also available to anyone who wants to listen so it’s pretty plain who on this bb is talking sense and who is not.

Any confusion on the bb today has not arisen as a result of company comms, it’s purely because of misrepresentation and misinterpretation by some posters - which I would argue, appears deliberate.

At 11am Microcap1 wrote a post, part of their post stated the following, verbatim: “Does it not say something that Colin has chosen a podcast and not an RNS and has now pushed timelines out to the end of the year?”

Colin, in the interview being discussed, categorically did not push the timeline out to the end of the year.

Now I’m not sure what your definition of lying is, but what would you call it when someone deliberately writes something that is not true?

Stop acting like I’m the problem here for stating very clearly and calmly what happened and why I won’t tolerate it - and for the record, insulting me or suggesting I’m a company insider, or the prime minister, or Colin himself doesn’t make your argument any stronger, it just makes you look like an idiot who’s run out of ideas on how to have a structured debate.

Yup, hands up, I’m definitely frustrated by some posters on this bb who are blatantly lying about what is said via company comms and then attempting to go on the attack when their lie was called out.

So to be clear Andrew, you take issue with me suggesting that company guidance given during an interview should be seen as a factual update about company operations but take no issue with microcap blatantly lying about deadlines being pushed to the end of the year which categorically was not stated during the interview?

Yes Jez, valid interjection as always, I work for the company, I'm Starmer, I'm Colin Bird, I'm a flat earther etc etc.

Never mind that I'm one of the few people who wants to stick to the facts given in company interviews/news releases.

Probably better if everyone just takes what's written by some of the posters on the bb as fact rather than comms directly from the company, eh?

"It's obvious why Colin chose to use the podcast channel and that's because there's no one to verify anything he's saying, and again that's what the share price hasn't moved even with all of the efforts of some to keep it pointing to the recording as if it's a holy grail of real information, which it patently is not."

So to be clear microcap, are you stating that the update Colin gave during the interview is a lie?

I just want to understand what your issue is with Colin providing a clear update via interview which also explains that RNS's will follow with all of the information shortly?

As an aside, Re our discussion, this is what I stated verbatim: "The point I’m making is that in between RNS’s, it is still helpful to receive an UPDATE via an interview as to how operations are progressing to get a general feel of what / when the next update will be." - I never once stated that the interview is the holy grail of real information, or suggested that it is anything other than a helpful update, that is (again) a lie completely fabricated by you in order to further your point.

There is a clear difference in what I said and how you are portraying it, which ridiculously, demonstrates exactly the issue I'm taking with you over company comms.

No Andrew, "deserved criticism" would be a structured argument with evidence to back up the OP's view.

Misrepresenting company comms does not equate to valid criticism, it is plainly lying.

In fairness Andrew, you came at me attempting to be an authority figure on the subject of XTR during a conversation not directed at you and that you were not a part of, gave a poor analogy that no-one asked for (that plainly proved my point, not your own) and you're now acting like I'm the one out of line?

Any views on the blatant lies about what was said during the interview? ... or we just ignoring that too?

Presumably you’re just going to ignore being called out as a blatant liar when you stated that CB has: “pushed timelines out to the end of the year?”

Which categorically did not happen.

Quick, get another one of the “definitely legitimate” posters to engage me so you can distract from the utter nonsense you’re posting.

Microcap - updates can come across in various forms. I’m aware of what constitutes an RNS thanks.

The point I’m making is that in between RNS’s, it is still helpful to receive an UPDATE via an interview as to how operations are progressing to get a general feel of what / when the next update will be.

Again, there is no debate.

CB provided an update via interview.

Several posters are trying to confuse / mislead / misrepresent what was said.

Not a debate, just clear comms from a company, and a bunch of liars on a bulletin board.

Andrew, I have no issue with deserved criticism of the company. I have an issue with misrepresentation of company guidance and falsifying what is said during interviews to give the impression that operations are not going to plan.

When I take issue with something, I’m clear about what that is and offer supporting evidence, I don’t incorrectly transpose what was said in an interview to create a falsified impression of company events.

For the record, when you say “because there is not a clear alternative” - you’re aware the “alternative” could be any financial investment, stock market or otherwise.

I feel you’re getting confused and a little lost with your own analogy.