Member Info for NikeAir180

The original thread, "Regency Mines became Corcel" from 05/07/24 disproves the attributed comment by Zumore at 22:21 on friday 31/01/24.

It is incorrect to attribute an aspect of Hamlet Act 3 scene 1 by way of speculative comment to Helpful and no-one attributed it to Zumore, from any of the threads that day or any day as far as I am aware.

On a lighter note: Kemche, nothing required - a fact.

You will likely remenber Lear spending some time ruminating on nothing.

Am guessing there were no further posts from you on this site regarding the inner workings of someone's mind, in the amateur detailed way, implied.

06/08/24 at 12:30 on Chat Chat thread you commented on having two of your posts removed - you knew why and you were correct at 12:43.

10/08/18 at 11:29 om the then RGM.L share chat you commented on having all your posts removed which seemed to have been speculative comments on mental space. Regardless of what might be the case at other times, that was the case then.

Following on from 22:00 and Zumore's response...

It was on the Chat Chat thread 06/08/24 you said: like News, you had had a perfect posting history on this website and you claimed it was for 11 years.

On 10th August (not 18th).. on 10/08/18 at 11:29 on RGM.L share chat (as it was then and that share chat is still readable) on Wow all my Posts were Removed thread (or very similar title) you apologised after explaining that you thought it would be fascinating to explore the inner workings of someone's mind. Your apology seemed to me to be moderated by your self-praise for apologising and your earlier defence of what you found interesting.

As you said you were banned for a day (in 2020).

The point Zumore is that you completely misled anyone who read and believed your 06/08/24 claim to 11 years perfect posting history.

I have never found your sarcasm and espoused opinions regarding RRR to be corresponding to a more likely truth than the aspiration and explanations from their own comments.

Correct, no need...

Re. 19:39: Could you Zumore ever have said to News in 2024 - you had never had any posts removed in your (then) eleven years posting here but in actual fact - think it was on 18/08/18 or near to that day - you described on another share chat, on this site, how you had lost posts and gave a moderate apology for what you said you thought was an amusing assessment of somone's mental space - slight paraphrasing but true to the meaningful content.

Point Zumore is: you often try to imply things are not as said, you are implying beyond just simple humour - to suit your dislike of this share - etc - that a video interview was deliverately misleading.

From the other share chat you claimed that Helpful was lying when he mixed some part of conversation with another poster as something you said, it is correct you did not say it though both you and that poster were conversing so it was an easy mistake to make - appropriate to check, re-check sometimes, don't think it was a lie but it was not true and so not correct. A lie by contrast might require a deliberate disguise when making a comment, a deliberate false statement and in both variations for it to be a lie it would require a deliberate attempt to mislead.

I don't find the foliage misleading and I don't find your attack surprising. As for the other share I was speed reading back several years based on topic and not poster but that contradiction across time was relevant to here.

Re. 15:59 - Decent interview, nothing pitiful about it and the "Sorry" was not sorry.

213 rather than 305...

17:03 post by blueboy1975 - false post - currently 213 posts in the last month - significanty less than the claimed 500 and, 300.

The poster being referred to in that post never presented his interpretation of the stuation within his commentary as a "done deal" although positive towards it, he was more sceptical than that.

Nothing in that article supports the claims within your last two sentences of your erroneous 10:35 post yesterday Banbury. All armies and military groups should be repected for their capacity and potential - you still made false comment yesterday.

Re. 17:04: Actually Banbury my search was based on most poweful and well equipped... as futher detailed at 15:47, number 17 (wasn't getting the contries conceptually mixed up, just lapse in concentration) was not relevant to your 10:35 post but the country you referred to within those last two sentences did not make the top 38 in the March 12 2024 article I consulted, as said I found multiple sources to back up number 1 and nuber 8 ranked.

The thing is Banbury, on previous occassions you have claimed you used the filter but still responded and I never believed you anyway.

Re. 16:17, 15:47 - for some reason I got Zimbawe mixed with the country Banbury was referring to in the last two sentences of 10:35, that one wasn't in the top 38 countries listed to the continent by critera most powerful and well equipped as per 15:47.

15:47... Article was from March 12, 2024... I found more than one source (and none to the contrary) saying the number 8 ranked country from 15:47 post is in the top ten from that continent regarding most powerful and well equipped and all internet searches consulted outside of this share chat and the erroneous 10:35 post did not have the country reffrered to in the final two sentenceces in the current / very recent top ten.

It is wise to respect the capacity of armies and the only purpose aside from year correction - 15:47 post, was to state there is evidence to falsify the last two sentences of Banbury's 10:35 post, which can easily be found via an internet search using the critera referred at 15:47.

Re. 10:35 fiction by Banbury - final two sentences.

Following an internet search of most powerful and well equipped armies in Africa - as of an article per March 12 20224 - Zimabwe: 17, DRC: 8. Egypt: 1. I found three sources saying Egypt is currenty number 1, only source incuding this share chat, I noticed, saying a country outside the top ten for that continent is the best equipped from that continent is Banbury.

There are times when Banbury simply makes things up.

Blueboy'75 - if, could, could = no assumptions as you know.

Re. 08:40: That 9.6m is your assumption of total debt, it is beyond just the current liabilities as detailed in tge annual report of 13/12/24. If there was a staged payment, it might be a tangible help tor alleviation of current liabilies, which could in turn reduce total debt. Cashflow if ever realised from any assets might also help alleviate current liabilities, which could then gradually reduce total debt.

29/01/25 RNS from today is actually the RNS being considered at 21:12.

Further to 18:12, responding to Banury - 17:53.

Re-read the RNS from today: Update on DRC included that the "the process is on track... it remains a priority, the company resumed resumed work on this matter today." (29/01/24).

Bell gave additional context in his italicised comments to the above - not unreasonable at all. Within that section he referred to potential external financing... supportive major shareholders have been refrerred to in the past via RNS - an example of which has been in relation to the deal with POW for 100% ownership of RRAL. Regarding approaches for assets mentioned in today's italicised comments... there was a previous RNS which referred to an initial offer regarding NBGC / RRAL. There was a a previous RNS referreing to an approach regarding Ivory Coast asset.

These futher italicised comments from today's RNS that I allude to have been anticipated by and are similar to previous statements from previous RNS. In that context these aspects are not "highly unusual" as Banbury put it and to claim these italicised comments contained "lots of further details" was a typical exaggeration and hypey in its negativity.

Re. 18:12:

... considering the futue, the outcome of which remains unkown.