Member Info for NikeAir180

Context was efficuent. : ' )

Re. 13:06: Blueboy1975, you have missed a subtlety: the fingers crossed image which immediately followed the 10:26 comment. I regard that comment as aspirational, not factual (because of the linear nature of our perception of time and evidence of production could only be communicated and understood sometime in the future) but distinctly possibly given the RNS from yesterday which confirmed management and kit have in (some sense) arrived.

Even if small scale production was to start this week (hopefully not too much internal delay re. transit - if there is any) we might still have to wait till at least next week to hear if anthing tangible - of moderate initial significance might have been produced.

Notably the comment at 10:26 is not a complete contradiction of anthing in yesterday's RNS, it is an expressed hope regarding anticipation of near term production and it is pretty close to my personal assumption but I think "fingers crossed" for any such assumption is a reasonable caveat.

Helpful, your conjunction at 12:22 is not correct, I think you should only be referencing the kit regarding Banbury's very mischievous comment at 11:47. Notably in his reply to you today, approximately 12:30? (I am out of sequence) he said (from recall so this could be approximate) "of course Billings is there because the nomad signed it off" - the descrepancy between Banbury's post yesterday at 08:48 and today at 11:47 regarding kit is very clear.

Banbury, what you expressed, 11:47, as a fact re. no kit is negated by your own comment at 08:48 yesterday when you said "must have flown in with him" regardless of how some kit might have got there, your comment yesterday seemed be with awareness of RRR's RNS from earlier yesterday.

Good humour Maidit : )

The thing about who or who, well one can have more than one forename, they can be accurate and one could be preferred, sometimes.

Re. 12:18: and nor should he...

... production amount.

The starting day was later re. Faso gold as Bell explained in a recent video due to Billings having a meeting with a high level diplomat, before he could travel. Helpful may not have been wrong about the intial prodction ount which was only an estimate for what might be possible nor that it might take approximately eleven days, the starting day will have been or is later due to managemant arririving later if I understood the gist of it right.

... Occasionally, on a bus will go past stop.

Re. 22:05: how would you know? Payments get done late occassnally, a lot of peole have had that situation, not ideal but it sometimes happens ranging amongst different people, from pounds to more pounds.

... just "never done..." re. 17:51 - no double negative intended - though don't think the repetition was literally one where the negative, by repeat, would become postive, it was just one repetition.

Banbury, re. 13:32 - I do not agree. If someone imagines something is fine or considers the possibility of a potential future as "just fine" - re. the 13:14 comment you were respondinding to - where both uses of the word were imaginning the positive does not mean something else - some might consider as a potential positive, won't happen and I don't think anything to support such an interpretation has been said in the recent video recordings thus far.

I also do not agee with your 13:35 comment. I have never considered anthing Helpful has said as a reason for making an investment or divestment decision in this stock, I have never done never done either on such basis. RRR make RNS statements reviewed by the nomad, take part in video interviews etc, I have only read this share chat and the balance of perspective with that background consideration.

Re. 13:19: Theeeduke - there is a RRR rns fom 07/10/24 and is in the boxed section where there is a relevant part considering variations in relation to payment to POW, also using the conditional - Helpful, today, was not confirming either variation was about to occur.

Re. 14:42: Aimdogs I don't.think what you interpret with quotation from a post is correct. Bell had already given a video recording on X which referenced those details prior to Helpful mentioning them on this share chat.

... at 15:36 as opposed to 16:10 : ' )

... of course if one has adequate sustenance, they might as they are typing, find their own comments are more defensible agains inclination for spelling mistakes. Whilst spelling mistakes could add up... one earlier was a joke.

Ha ha... or rather repetition. Loads of spelling mistakes which were edited - one as far as I can see was missed, haven't eaten yet and in such situation or relevant time gaps that is an influence on typing errors, though sum of us will miss such, occssionally from time time on a read through, regardless.

Also out of sequence, so I can't see the time for the previous response to Aimdogs which I am correcting.

Aimdogs, at one time and another time I mixed up the time, such has happened from time to time - too many numbers whilst considering a few poins, such a mistake could happen at any time, from time to time. Ironically, without the timing mistake I migh not have digressed.

Now clearly I meant a word in the individual sense as the context was considered to have been meant towards individuals - instinctively aware it can have a meaning in an individual capacity and a corporate capacity, however on later looking up the word I saw some of the technical considerations for its use in corporate context, I also found definitions to support the context in which I used it for which it was applied in the context it was meant. I could have just left it there but even if defendable by available definition, it was also slightly harsh without context. By making context clear it was fair enough if slightly tiresome, perhaps from a reader's point of view by repetiton. : )

Correcting futher my 05:39 post: thewords from Banburyboy's post were not "get out now" - they were "Get out at..." from 01/11/24 at 16:27.

As said, I only consider that to have been divestment advice in the context of it being meant towards individual posters and readers of this share chat for their potential holdings of this stock.

I have no objection to the original comment - it has only been referred, to draw a contrast with his remarks towards another.

I appreciate I have been very repetitious on this thread and this has been unintentional inefficiency by myself.

Hopefully people will have a good day...