Member Info for NikeAir180

Banbury, responding to yourself at 15:17 - if you were to say "two plus two equals four" I would agree with you on that - "two and two equals four" - maybe depending on the context but too much potential for situational variation for it to be a fact by isolated statement, alone.

So I think 13:02 on 16/08/24 he is interpreting the words "final meeting" and then assuming settled in principle.

News does know as evidenced by his other comments that for something to be "settled" in this context, it has to be concluded, we all agree we are not there yet.

Consider this to be an ammendment to my approximately 13:00 post of today, so yes it was once said but the word, in my opinion, was not said with the full weight of conclusion and nor was it referring to conclusion. Something cannot be concluded before it is so, even if it was possible all were in agreement, before agreement is fully confirmed.

It's okay Banbury, I've found it, 13:02, think it was, shorter post as Theeeduke said - on 16/08/24, so was a slight over interpretation of presumed "final meeting" implied but the first RNS that day, weekend's posts no use of the word "settled", he didn't "bang on about it being settled".

Banbury at 13:14, you were mistaken. On different occasions e.g. your stated time at KPMG was during the 1980s, or that even while posting, you were likely to be on a cycling holiday in Finland I referred to previous discourse we both had, clarifying for News and Helpful - you concurred both times so you should know what you have said is not true.

There was also a specific range comment for something Helpful said that you claimed was "criminal", I had a memory for the topic (ironically I can't currently recall the specifics) re. the posts and found the Bell interview which was close enough to Helpful's point, you acknowledged that to me very soon afterwards and immediately stopped that attack on that topic.

The third example Banbury, was one where I was actually defending you from yourself.

I agree with today's clarification by News.

Re. 11:00. News never said it was "settled" so it would have been difficult for him to have "banging on about it being settled". He may have been quite bullish or optimistic but I am sure he will know "settled", in the relevant context, is a conclusion and clearly there is no conclusion yet.

16:03... and changed the subject, point being although both intelligent and tough the interviewer was out-toughed and the legend didn't have a sequel.

So different interview styles have their own advantages and disadvantages, you could try emailing the company your questions and see how realistic your expectation of response is or wait for half-year and annual reports, which by their nature are extensive.

Talkinto, I'm relaxed about the timing of answers to the questions you pose .

I rate Paxman but do regard the interview with Michael Howard - think it was where the same question was repeated about fourteen times as a failure, it became rude which might appeal to some but it was clear there wasn't going to be answer to that one so some of the interview was wasted and the audience possibly learnt less than they could have.

While I watched the "legendary" one youtube, I did see live, a well prepared John Prescott say "Well what a silly question to ask Jeremy" to which he replied "Well alright.." and chang

Re. 15:03: As the saying goes: "DYOR".

Or just... "set fair".

Dependent on a sufficient recovery in the lithium price... Nimble juniors can re-prioritise pretty quickly, am sure it's not forgotten though.

You had the update re. lithium on 28th March 2024, that was a longer type RNS as is typical for half-year annual report.

Replying to, 12:24 fom 11:38.

Must be long in the right way for you then Aimdogs...

Talkinto, sixth paragraph - 11:48, I think you are going to have to wait, a lot of the time you pose your questions it seems to me you have ignored the interviews. That wish list would be a lot for a quite a nimble junior mining company to put in one RNS, maybe the sort of range of questions, at this stage, that might be answered at board level but not beyond that, in my opinion.

Replying to 10:10 and 23:43, News apologies for incorrectly using the word: paraphrasing, I realised afterwards and after several beers I wasn't quite right -so should have just been "close enough"... : )

As of 04:28 Gold Futures 2518.2

Re. 17:51, nice try Banbury but you fell short. The 13:40 post with verbatim was implying we are still in the opinion phase and not the fact phase.

News later went back to the interview and what he then quoted is summary / paraphrasing but close enough.

Re. the £20000 worth of shares reciprocated to a lender, that person wanted the shares...

Re. 22:24 - Very unsurprising...

... no post at 07:59 today on the London South East Forum for non-premium share chat RRR, I recognise the quote on said... precise forum and share chat but it wasn't at 07:59 today.

News all I will say by courtesy of response, is that, although clear that it is a quote, the timing of the the reference is incorrect. It might be even less clear to a new reader and we were all new readers once, if a new reader looks on ADVFN they won't be able to see the original post by you but they would have to put a bit of effort in on the London South East Forum if they were a new reader or any reader as there is no 07:59 post from yourself or anyone else today.

Other things to do now, cheers.

... if valid points are going to refer to this please check and correct that part, thanks.

The possibly better result: "I think we're looking at a good result, in fact I'm now looking at a slightly better result than I was looking at before" approx. 5:04 to 5:13 within the most recent interview.

On the balance of likelihood, I think the first visit since the interview will be to Burkina Faso.

I liked his words "set fair" it was just slightly earlier in the interview to the specific but i am optimistic that it might also apply to the general.

I appreciated your comments and have a good day...