Member Info for NikeAir180

That's okay Blueboy1975, I don't need the distraction.

Two people can sell something once and one person can comment on it.

One person can sell something once and another can comment on it.

One person can sell something twice and one person can comment on it.

... Apologies for the accidental multiple.

... and neither did Helpful for for that matter.

Re. 13:15, the difference between a will and in if is what seperates prediction from hope, am pretty sure Helpul did not say there will be production by dates referred... summer months. One could wish without predicting.

Will gold help with gems? I heard dragons like them.

As I understand it their Paradox Basin asset is gas, oil equivalent and not for gasoline, gas... beyond that you may be considering some subtelties which are beyond my immediate or quick understanding and doesn't matter for here.

The four aces.... yep I can think of four potentials, think RRR need to try to show nice ingredients soon. One plate with something reasonably satisfying would be decent and two would be good from my perspective. If there is time lag that doesn't mean the potential aces have gone away but much of this year has gone so I am sure RRR will want to have some positive news in the year of the dragon.

Helpful, Williston Basin - oil (non-operation exposure), Paradox Basin the exploration asset which they are looking to operate - gas: hence referred to estimattion of what is there in terms of barrels of oil equivalent... relating to Zephyr Energy.

Back to RRR it will be nice to see which spinning plate(s) will give us something tangible in the near term if there is some meaningful starch.

Half-year report of 28/04/24 does suggest there was a liitle bit of export relevant to RRR.

I understand Zumore's posts and your posts very well Banbury, although not Zumore's two most recent posts to which he referred as I hadn't read them.

Inductive reasoning as at 00:10 with what Zumore said regarding the issue of shares example is not valid deduction, given what he then postulated regarding Helpful. It was specifically an example of inductive logic not deductive and not syllogistic.

The final paragraph is in my opinion mischaracterisation of a poster. There were elements of silliness in the post and inclusive of the post heading, and mere assumption as part of his critique.

No, Theeedukee it will be three years before the annual report, initially just one wrapper, haven't been static - know for a fact 2022 was okay from one perspective, in the second wrapper I have always had some exposure to RRR since initial holding.

I've had worse than this one, comparable to some of the bigger percentage losses but have neither talked them up or down and I don't bear grudges if something doesn't work out.

The 00:10 post contains silly logic, not syllogistic.

Re. The 10:35 comment, I don't remember that.

I'm quite positive about the various leadership... I think some of the occasional agitation at the momement is more a concern about, when, not so much the if - nothing is guaranteed here but I look forward to seeing how things unfold.

Thanks Blueboy1975 and with full respect for News it was of course... spodumene.

We are 40% funded.

Re. 20:36... read the referred to comment: it is somewhat obvious that Helpful's written explanation of today - which is an exact repeat of previous and Bell's written explanation - referred, are broadly similar with small difference of detail for something that ultimately isn't of core importance to RRR and ALR particularly if there is ever any successful revenue exposure to that commodity, though yes it was appropriate to explain, because of the level of importance for some people involved - I think people who did explain understood by word of mouth possibly from alternative but still valid sources but even if just one valid original source - it would have been distincly possible to have small but overall non-negating differences between similar explanations.

Responding to a few comments on this thread:

Banbury you are moving the goal posts again - the lithium anniversary you have prevoiusly correctly dated is one year on 15/11/24 not 13/11/24 as you put it a short while ago.

The "press reaction" is an exaggeration - a freelance writer who doesn't work under same editorial co trol aa mainsteam press - well answered in the replies section by Bell and Winnifrith.

Zumore whether someone knew someone a month before inadequate photos may have been taken is not negating Helpful's explanation, most people know their peers without knowing how good their photography skills are and even if they had seen photos relevant to mining or industrial work, they could have been taken by acquaintance's behalf and so even if knowing others in a work capacity, one may not know their photography skills.

Specinvestor99, even if photos had been inadequate first time round - if bandwidth was a factor - they could have been asked to go back with better bandwidth. Also you added some of your own commentary when you said you were repeating what Helpful said, he never said an Asian company contacted the warehouse manager for photos nor that it was an unkown company which is not to dispute thst photos were distributed and ended up with such a company - perhaps known prior, perhaps out of some general stock of marketing photos.

Back to poster's comment about someone getting sick and not taking photos - well even if that was a different named person to what Helpful said - still not necessarily a contradiction... one man can't attend, another man is sent with less photography skills, instead of going back with more bandwidth, he may have asked the warehouse manager to send the correct lithium photos but there may utlimately have been a mix up in the end.

Perhaps something like the above happened, perhaps it was a brief comedy of errors but things like that happen in all walks of life from time to time over different subject matter.

I still believe lithium is beiing stored as per half year RRR rns - 28/04/24, the annual report with further summary (pesumably) will be approximately end of the year and it will be beyond 15/11/24.

"Instead of going back"... there's an opening there isn't there where both descriptions could be true and not contadictory.

You have a low bar for comedy and objection it would seem Banbury, neither of which means Helpful wasn't being objective, as a matter of fact.

Re. :09:56: at the time, was intending to say (as another here, has put it) what I was re-responding to could be considered as someone "moving the goal posts".