Member Info for NikeAir180

... not to be seen again (since 13:04, so far) might have been more reasonable than "never to be seen again".

Helpful , I think your question is meant to be considering $2,500 ...

I should add that by weather prediction as forecast, I am meaning at the meteorologist level whether by person or computer substitute and am thinking in terms of the one to two day range which I regard as near certainty. Perhaps a better way of putting it is that I would think of a one to to two day "weather forecast" as a prediction that has the quality of near certainty.

In my opinion, humans have more influence over a share price than they do over the weather and that includes the company which has been analysed, via their operational decisions and the buyers and sellers of the company stock, the analyst can't know with near certainty how those variations will unfold, he does know based on professional skill how to value assets based on information available and relevant commodity prices so that is what I find interesting in principle and might compare assets to current commodity prices to see if, for example, gold has gone up since january 2023, acknowledging that lithium might have gone down, recovering a little bit?

Some sleep would be about as useful as oxygen in the air after the rain...

Cheers

I perpersonally, don't think of a broker's note as a forecast, I think of something like a weather prediction as a forecast - with near certainty.

An analysts giving his price target does so partly based on information that has been provided to them regarding a company's commerce and valuation of the companies assets. The analyst knows the price target could be exceeded in reality so would not state something like "0.07 tops" ditto they know the price might not reach the level they estimate for valuing a company, target is expresses without certainty - also there is a typically a disclaimer confirming something along the lines that the report is not a recommenation and in the future what has been expressed may not happen either in whole or in part.

There was not a time limit imposed so not easy to judge something with hindsight, I do agree with the uncertainty in the disclaimer so my own attitude is non-committal and with the balance of time there is no need to answer now.

Sometimes a non-answer answer by way of reply can be entirely appropriate, even if the questioner is not fully satisfied, this applies to different arenas in life.

Am thinking of what News has just said but also bearing in mind there other situations where the principle of a non-answer answer is the only way of replying to a question that can not be answered in terms of information that the questioner might be seeking. Maybe live journalist to public official question in some situations as a general example.

... question as answered.... moves on... Edited from previous post, batter very low.

Note an answer might not satisfy the question - answer / reply overlap semantics, meaning from language often has more than one application, an answer but not the answer tge questioner was looking for, questioner might have to seek answer from. S

somewhere else. Listener, responder may regard question as answers, questioner may not, eventually no further replies on that topic questioner eventually oves on or asks someone else e.g. maybe in a formal interview situation - t.v. studio guests...

News, made it clear he wasn't going to answer the question, it might have been subtle but I think he was referring to regulatory aspects with that, after several repeat questions he said he would no longer be replying to the question and a reply - I think a reply and answer are not automatically synonymous. Battery out...

Another aspect of diplomacy is respectful dialogue - that could include defending one's perspective or standard in a courteous way without yielding to repeated challenges.

For everyone... not "rheoretical case"... theoretical was the intention and when I say everyone that is what I mean...

For specinvestor99, regarding the spelling: third time lucky...

Cheers...

For specinvestor99... not "rheotorical case", theoretical was the intention rather than the former, it is slightly harder to read precisely even with effort after beers and football, so not a pre-meditated joke, even if a bit of spontaneous intention has been included.

Cheers...

Not "rhetorical case", theoretical.... was the intention, the former was a mistype.

Specinvestor99, I did not state Banburyboy has the "ability"... that is your word... not my mine. The imposed restriction I was referring to, was the reztriction he was imposing within his own language and I actually it there a similarity in that aspect to his 09/07/24 comment on another share chat which has been referred to by Helpful and replied to by myself - I have positive respect for that stock.

I can assure you, you are incorrect regarding your projected empathy to my intention.

If anyone was gullible enough to sell on Banbury's share price restrictions according to his own language, they may or may not loose out on potential upside.

It is obviously the rheoretical case that the RRR share price might not rise beyond 0.07 in the short term or even the medium to long term but that would not be because Banbury says so, even though he expressed his 0.07 RRR price restriction (opinion) as if it was a fact of the future.

Specinvestor99, as an example of language: during a recent - perceived to be - global pandemic lockdown restrictions were imposed on various publics. The lockdowns as impositions did not always work as restrictions, some transgressed and not all were punished, many who transgressed were retrospectively punished but the imposed restrictions did not always prevent social interactions up to and inclusive of the Prime Minister and Civil Service level.

Your pedantry has sometimes been appropriate but on this occasion you haven't considered the implications of words and their applicable meanings -enough.

Your "fantastic record" on the share chat of Red Rock Resources, Banbury involves repeated breaching of the site chat rules.

You like to impose future price restrictions on the share pricec without knowing what the facts will be, no-one - including genuine experts predict price targets as a restriction on future upside - with certainty.

Your political timing is also off... just a reminder that generally friends and family can often fall out on political difference, ideally love and respect is stronger, there have been times in history division over politics has been so strong that people have fallen out for a long time.

Watching the sky news coverage last night of seeing the Truth Social post they showed fro somebody's uncle, it is clear to me that with the most challenging of circumstances, there was genuine consideration of others and nothing that was narcissism.

... there is the second half of the year...

Have to acknowledge split posts with further replies is a slight waste of energy and then pressing share chat instead of post message is an interruption of flow.

Fortunately that is just a tired coincidence after over-exuberance during the football.

Have a good weekend...

Helpul, I read the Zephyr share chat occasionally and noticed the RNS fom 09/07/24 and will probably catch up with a n experienced blogger's perspective. I think, I get the gist of what you are alluding to and if a potential issue is well managed it could be part of a positive analysis rather than a negative concern, time will tell, hope it goes well...

No-one over there would like someone popping over to post definite upside limits on short term price movements or saying as if it was a matter of fact that good news will be followed by bad as has been done over here.

One prediction I will make: after the first half,

Banbury lots of people are capable of seeing your errors.. sometimes you have an error of detail and sometimes it is how you organise details and sometimes your posts contain errors combined.

Editing: commenced.... last two points generalisations by me across more than one reply.

I don't see how a thought experiment. in relation to known aspiration for quite imminent gold production and known key date of 18th July fkr other reasons which Banbury himself pointed out is accessing privileged information, I have considered those variations based on logic alone and a "what if" is not a misleading prediction.

I believe it it was Banbury who first brought up 18th July, pointing out it was a date relevant to convertible loan notes. To paraphrase and simplify... Helpful in replies to Theeeduke's speculation on CLN conversions / share price... wondered what would happen if gold production hadn't coonenced before that date but seemed to look like it was going to be imminent or perhaps even starting on the 18th... last two points are generalisation be across more than one reply.