Member Info for NikeAir180

Re. 15:02: "was factually incorrect" Zumore claims re... quoted post from 15/07/23, really - then?

A weak basis on which to claim someone was lying, in my opinion.

No he wasn't right re. 14:07, that is not supposed to be how it works is it.

RRR's percentage of ALR is 47% according to the most recent relevent RNS but am not sure the entire remaininging 53% is owned as Banbury described, I don't remember such comment, think it was a lower combined percentage.

Blueboy1975, your three suppositions at 11:30, do not one fact make.

Aimdogs what you profess to think in your post at 12:29 is entirely distinct from fact.

Banbury, regarding Helpful's brief explanation at 10:10, I know that to be correct, it is common knowledge.

Re. 08:57: Banbury you have posted an RNS from another company regarding a potential delisting by way of replying but not answering a question from Cgull with regard to RRR, you then finished your post by saying that it was all in your opinion which seems to be an example of confusion with muddled exaggeration or perhaps it was a conflation to continue your communication of negative sentiment.

Lithium - fibs as a pretense at knowledge, alternative to the 28/03/24 RRR rns.

Re. 07:46: pretty sure no-one on this share chat has ever said they hold 10% of any gold assets, you exaggerating again Banbury?

Replying to 17:16 and with regard to 17:03:

Specinvestor99, when I mentioned a coordinating conjunction I was considering your application of "or" in your final paragraph at 16:38 and I do consider it to be an example of mistaken conflation by dint of the two aspects either side of it. There was a further coordinating conjunction in that final paragraph by your use of "and" - by that point I think you were also conveying a false equivalence. I specifically agree with the third paragraph of Helpful's 17:30 post - which is very similar in perspective to the basis of my responses to your 16:38 and 17:16 posts.

Mistaken conflation is never helpful.

I think throughout your final paragraph at 16:38 there is mistaken conflation Specinvestor99 and consider the coordinating conjuction as an example of that.

I still disagree.

I disagree with that perception of certainty.

Ah Blueboy1975 - before returning to your post I genuinely thought you were somebody else with a different first letter, glad I was wrong about that, we don't need extra rudenesss.

Don't know which way round the who who the RNS' were, haven't time to check such an inconsequential detail, if ithere was a mistake (best not repeated) it is not of consequence. The general point about the genuine names of someone but their preferred name from those - for people referring to them is entirely correct, inclusive of all forenames and surname - just a fact Blueboy1975.

... would👌

Re. 16:51 I think that use of the word: disingenuous is misplaced Specinvestor99. The 14:00 post of Zumore referenced an April video interview during which the larger scale operation was considered which woyld as many if us know wpuld have involved relevant equipment to that. Since that time, much more recently, a smaller scale operation is planned to start production , using different equipment and different on site leadership compared to April. Equipment could affect operational cost positively or negatively re. scale. For someone to conflate different aspects from different different seasons and try to apply a negative viewpoint to a more recent plan is, I think, what Helpful had in mind when he was using the analogy of Nelsonian knowledge.

Re. 15:04: I don't think so Banbury, Zumorre is referring to a video interview from April, tactics, near term strategy and type of equipment has changed since then.

Regarding the second half of point 2 at 14:00 by Zumore - my guess is any tactical variance since then for type of equipmemt used for method of mining

might be relevant, so I don't think the negative interpetation following the publicsed change of near term stategy will necessarily be correct. Time will tell.

Banbury re. 13:13: having gone back to the annual report from december 20th 2023 up to end of june 2023, the carrying value for the exploratory assets was slightly above £13.6 million which is obviously double your speculative and non-differentiated figure for two years total debt figures - current and non current, inclusive of this year. Carrying exploratory asset value might be different this year but I don't think it will be significantly less than 2023 and it may be a positive difference, so am not too concerned by your debt speculation.

Zumore, a junior mining company might build up information knowledge on an asset and then sell it on pre-production, an entity more capitalised might then get production going - in some instances, perhaps benefitting from information previously collated. That it seems is sometimes part of the sector, regardless of what may or may not be relevant to one of the junior explorers you are so irked by.