Member Info for NikeAir180

RE. 09:02: Banbury, I'm not in denial of what was said, I'm in disagreement that it was cruel, I consider it to have been without malicious intent and it was never presented as if it was near term fact.

I believe the thought experiment re. production in a scenario of optimal machinery and workforce was posted before the complication over air freight VAT, RRR did not want to pay the VAT which they considered injust and that does seem fair, shipping was slowed down and there seems to have been a couple of other issues. I still think Helpful will be optimistic but he is not posting his imagination of near term gold production by month or scale for obvious reasons. I do not accept your characterisation of "cruel" which you attempted to justify because of a few of his posts in late winter... spring / early summer and attempted to justify because he is an investor in the direct asset. I do not accept there was any intention to mislead.

You have previously stated and presented the closing remark without opinion but as if it was a fact re. "ponzi for Helpful and his friends" on an evening post of 22/08/24. You have on 23/08/24 claimed Helpful was cruel, you have been countered and then tried to claim I denied what was said. No... - 08:23 - I made it clear today, 24/08/24 that I disagree with your characterisation and the chronology of posts which you mischaratertise and the subsequent adjustment and non-reiteration is important because external facts changed re. the short term as we was publicised via RNS (possibly including Reach) and company interviews with Stockbox, available via YouTube and Stocbox and Red Rock Resources on Twitter, perhaps directly on Stockbox's website as well.

Most people regularly posting on the share chat, are in my opinion, aware of the chronology.

I thought the RNS update yesterday, when mentioning CLNs and the update on the options was pertaining to financial matters and so satisfied "the coming days" remark from the previous weeks RNS. I appreciate some mayvwant more information and there may be further information but my instinctive reaction was the intention to providea a financial update in the coming days had been provided by a subsequent RNS that did mention financial aspects.

Aware of humour... here and there: " think chronology of posts will back me up" was referring to content of discussion re. 08:23, not my imminent rest. : )

... think chronology of posts will back me up...

Might have been a predictive site software overwright.

Have a good weekend all...

Faso production speculation was presented more like a thought experiment if a significsntbnumber of wash plants were on site which would take time to achieve.

It was never presented as fact of what was going to happen and if I remember correctly it was before the VAT issue with air freight which RRR did not want to pay for, there have been other complications so no more imaginative scenarios about production. Production would have to start and the operation would havevto properly get going before an imaginitivevs scenario regarding production could be tested with evidence but I note when defending that Helpful has referred to a RRR presentation ad source for his thinking n.b. I am writing this with approximate memory but think it is good enough and the recorded chronology of posts will be good enough.

Probably won't be back on here for many hours, perhaps the whole day.

Cheers...

Yep... as said, I tend to agree, the geological trend and timing of both companies RNS are intersting because of how logistically close they are but until further information provided, we don't know - interesting stuff to think about though - also I need to correct 00:26 - not "to" but... I almost forgot what I was agreeing too. With that, I have to go - otherwise food will get cold...

Have a good weekend : )

Agreed... but it was 8:40am, now it is am again, News I appreciate your points as always, after a few beers, I almost forgot what I was agreeing to : ) but the price of the take away was the same. : )

Specinvestor99, in response to your second paragraph, no-one should deliberately set out to mislead, that is with regard to optimism and non-optimism and with general regard for the site chat rules.

Cheers for now...

I recognise the former specinvestor 99 because I said it, I wasn't considering the latter - you said it, but if that was so - then it would reduce the "cruelty" that Banbury tried to overshadow relaxed optimism, less cause - less effect.

Re. 17:50 - Presumably someone who is invested directly in the asset as well as this company, someone who adapted their short term optimism for production starting as circumstances changed, without loosing confidence in the fundamental asset.

Now are we in a good place? perspective wise, well, my guess would be perhaps between short term and medium term optimism for production starting, depends on range bound perspective on what distinguishes a short term time frame and a medium term one.

The above is with positive empathy towards another poster who Banbury chooses to portray in a cynical perspective.

With regard to my own perspective... I don't know when or, with certainty - if production will start, I offer no clue or specific hope but I remain sunny side up.

Re: 10:01: I think the RNS of 08:40, 23/08/24 is reasonable, I do not find it unusual, I think the nomad will have clarity and they will believe the details of the RNS are comprehensible.

Re. 09:09: Banbury by what magical thinking do you claim today's RNS refers to an offer for an asset - RRAL, "we don't even own"? I acknowledge the company RNS of 10:16, 19th June 2024.

Correction of typos from 18:50 - not "if comparison" nor "ponds" but... of comparison .... and currency when describing market cap should have been - pounds.

Replying to Banbury at 17:30: I never asked you specifically for a benchmark but I accept conversation is open to all and I mentioned comparison of peers, though, whilst that was alongside a detail, I meant it with regard to the whole post and the general - on occasion.

I did mention in the 01:35 post pre-tax loss because I had observed a similar amount but my main emphasis if comparison was expense on admin responding to Zumore last night. I also corrected a market cap figure, which should have been in ponds at 01:49 and provided further context acknowledging different circumstances and stages.

There have been historical successes for Red Rock Resources - not just difficulties, they have been pointed put to you by more than one person with accuracy but you deliberately choose to ignore such details.

You ask me to ignore past performance but yourself by general exaggeration as in your below post and yourself and others by varying degree of specification, repeatedly bring up past performance and emphasise what has not been achieved, so I don't know how that would be more favourable, in considering the feelings of long term holders - whose decisions won't have all been the same, and those who have done badly in one stock may have done better somewhere else; if someone is unhappy with the history of this stock they can choose, whether they want to read or not, post or not but various points will come up relevant to aspects of discussion and researching back is fair enough - when others use historic details to present their stance or in support of another's stance, when there may be evidence to support another stance and so a better balanced historical overview may be implied by that and readers can then check historical details for themselves, they can do so without such discussion but not everyone who reads the share chat will do so, it is reasonable to counter.

Your closing remark is without legal weight or evidence, I only regard it as your stated opinion but not necessarily your real opinion.

The main point of comparison Banbury, was the different costs on admin, so even with assets across a few continents: RRR's expense on admin was about 30% of the quoted expense from 2013, I actually got cut off when editing by pressing post too soon but it did not matter, the production I am considering was gold and silver production as El Limon had been restarted which was sensible - if they weren't ready to sell it or suitable buyer was not yet ready, this will have contributed to a stronger equity position compared to now, in my opinion, as always happy to be constructively corrected or clarified by News or Helpful on annual reports and will also consider other perspectives, have never attempted to go through the figures of such in detail before, outside of this stock.

I note your proclaimed indignation but I think you just didn't like that to which you replied and so I regard the content of 16:44 as a "a bit of hot air".

Looks like the expense for admin for full annual report of 2023, published December 2023, running to full year term end of June 2023, was 1.38 milliond pounds so approximately 30% of what it was in 2013, very approximate maths by myself but comparing it to 4.7 million plus for that expense from the cited 2013 annual report. The market cap was a bit higher at time of that report, I think but would have been less than 2013, I assume, some production and higher equity

RRR are trying to satisfy some of the aims from that report, time will tell if successful, and in what sequence.

Yawn...

I got cut off when replying to you earlier Helpful and was going to say you noted a complication and I think lots of junior mining companies will have complications before success is achieved (though complications are not a prerequisite but are fairly common) and had written that that they may well still have good chance of success, have since read the start of their 08/08/24 RNS which I think is useful, was aware of some that... complication but not in detail.

Best to them as well...

... my initial assumptions are: what seems to be a big sum of money on a specific category of expense is not actually unusual for similarly sized junior mining companies and such companies in general relative to peers.

Re. 1752: The usefulness of market cap comparison of the two reports is for an idea of proportion of admin expenses to the market caps, the reasons for the expense costs maybe different but my initial assumption and that is what it is - is what seems like a big