RE: RE: RE: water. Part 12 May 2019 10:06
CharlieLondon
l am comfortable with my perceptions if someone, in this case, you/(wolf), mistake it as criticism there's little l can do other then tell them/you/wolf it was not intended as a criticism. As l have done this and you still disagree there is now no more l wish to do to convince you otherwise.
" 1 "
" I doubt anyone truly rich will invest in an aim stock such as ANGS - they’d have much more profitable opportunities available "
This does not make much sense to me, surely everyone can buy, other than some shares costing hundreds of $ each which may not be affordable to others economic or practically.
" You will find a lot of people have taken sizeable bets based on the geology, Horse Hill etc "
Now you're starting to muddy the waters, I never said or implied otherwise/ and wouldn't expect anything else.
" This was never a totally binary play/exploration gamble, "
Not sure what you mean using the word binary there. Would you care to explain?
" but ANGS initially presented themselves as a very savvy outfit. No one expected the sheer incompetence of the past 12 months or so "
They did no arguments there, same as all other companies do.
Now you quote me.
" 2 "
" “some have lost more than 100k”. “Beggars the question what did they buy and sell for”. Why the question? "
Quoting you.
" Someone who bought at circa 30p will have lost nearly 90%. So it’s pretty clear how someone could have lost almost all their investment whether it’s 100k, 10k or 1k or more/less. "
Let's stick with the original comment from wolf " which l was talking about. Which were " some have lost more than 100k " other figures only continue to muddy the waters.
" Someone who bought at circa 30p will have lost nearly 90%. So it’s pretty clear how someone could have lost almost all their investment whether it’s 100k... "
Yes, correct, not disputed and no need to tell me that, quite capable of working that out for myself.
My horse is now starting to get higher.
" So why do you need to beggar the question other than to gloat? "
As wolf said, " some have lost more than 100k " ...more than, 100k, going on your figures means they must have invested greater than £1,000,000, of course if that was £'s wolf was referring to and not pence.
Now in all honesty, can you not tell me that £1m figure can not lead to anyone questioning how much anyone invested? Without gloating.
l did, and l didn't and l told you so. That should be enough for you to understand what and why l said.
Just for ease to read l quote myself again with the full paragraph.
" To lose 100K, what on earth did they invest in the first place? If you're rich and have that sort of disposable funds, does it really bother them? "
No gloating there, is there?
Sign In
Follow the stocks
