Member Info for NikeAir180

Helpful, I believe you...

I guess you've never wobbled down a chimney, must be why I don't believe you.

Well the acknowledgement of gold prices aren't luring or rampy. RRR has exposure to gold, some posters differ on whether it is relevant exposure. Time is relevant.

Someone giving their head "a right wobble" would not be doing their brain much good. Better not to wobble then re. 20:42.

Were you getting a bit fixated at 18:42? Banbury.

It is up to whether you want to challenge posters' comments or not, perhaps more focus on the comments rather than the poster would dilute fixation, focusing on comments doesn't require a reply, each reader can choose to assess whether it is worth it.

I found the article interesting, I acknowledged that to Maidit. He already knows I often disagree with some of the content of his posts and I didn't click on the thumbs up so there was no recommendation from me for the whole post. Maidit and I get along as posters partly because we are respectful to each other.

You concluded your 18:39 post in the manner of instruction. This is your answer.

Banbury, I think you go too far forwards with your negative perception of the company and too far backwards when suggesting distinguished intelligence. The 17:10 post is lacking in class.

That's an interesting article Maidit, including one of the links I read. Five days to the budget..

Re. 16:43: Aimdogs... another creative, you are like a fly swapping lions.

Banbury - second comment of your 15:54 post is answered at 13:37 by Helpful - he must have some talent to have done so ahead of time. Your creative embellishments have sometimes been countered by myself.

Regardless of if the overall content is correct or not, I think the conclusion of said post is a better one than the conclusion of the first reply.

No. I instictively agree with 1waving's post from approximately 90 minutes ago on the other website.

Banbury, what Helpful believed or did not believe at the time he posted a bit of banter is not verifiable ny the content of the post and that was one I did read at the time it appeared. It remains the case that your post yesterday at 07:06 is not valid.

Re. 01:21:

I found the post Helpful on the threads section, I don't think the points in that post connected that well logically but I haven't read it or re-read in the context of other posts on that thread.

Aimdogs, still not sure how it is misinformation or misleading? If Helpful was correct... and bearing in mind the RRR rns of 05/04/24 which referred to some intense activity on that matter which might be be consistent with working some of that weekend, how would you know it to be misleading information?

The background at the time, was, we knew there was some hard work going on re. potential compensation and there were monthly updates on that matter.

Cheers...

Not rattled Theeeduke....

Is it misleading because he never said it?

Helpful do you think you would have written such a post? which Aimdogs attributed to you at 22:12 on 24/10/24 relating to 30th March at 18:40.

You would probably remember either way, given what appears to be a suggested subject heading.

I'm not sure about that one, doesn't seem to be a logically well structured post. I think you will be able to remember bearing in mind the Easter refererence.

Cheers...

Re. 07:06: Banbury you are over-interpreting fom a banter post by Helpful. He did not accuse you of being a friend of a lawyer nor did he attach a professional role to something that could be substituted in banter.

Two goes Banbury, the third comment relating to November obligation was just prudence, although I agree if the first attempt had been succussful the 12:51 post wouldn't have been needed, 12:49 continuation of comment wasn't precise enough.

RRR - meaningful progress or lack of it, requires more time for me to decide whether that holding is a "looser" or an achiever. I am generous with my attitude regarding time and that is not just with this company.

Naturally, I wish you all the best with Zephyr.

Cheers for now...

Just to clarify: my 12:49 post is still solely reffering to the concept of RRR honouring payment to POW and is only in that context.

.... I think the question is more how the payment will be made rather than if. I acknowledge that worse could happen but bearing in mind RRR's communications so far it seems to me, at this time, to be more about the how and not the if.

If RRR continue to have to "the support of major shareholders", I would be surpised if they do not meet the relevant deadline in November for cash clearing in time owed to POW. I think the question is h