Member Info for NikeAir180

20:11: Banbury - RRR said they were on site on tbe twitter feed - friday just gone - from all the photos that afternnon - perhaps you can't recognise. Alternatively you like your repetition because you think the repetition will reinforce your negative perspective but it actually just repeats it.

Blueboy'75 - been around since 2013 with your story that you invested in RRR when it was multiples higher and you multiples down on your investment but even though having been around RRR since 2013 you are unaware seemingly of profitable years 2018 and 2020 as if you don't want to read RNS' / annual reports or choose to forget them. No sycophancy.from me, you just choose to attack to contine your negative take on RRR.

Of course you also chose to attack News and Helpful, maybe there was a little humour there - maybe there wasn't but why the attac? - because you didn't likee positive perspectives which challenge - whether directly or not - your negative narrative - and your origin point for RRR might be true, it might be an incorrect recollection but it did provide a presented reason to keep repeating over the years how much you wre down on RRR since 2013 or so even though 2018 and 2020 were profitable years which you were seemingly unaware of - fronting ignorance to me, then repetition of implied never any good times with RRR - historically you are wrong - some good stuff, some not so good - future remains unkown.

Nice try ont't but new variant on repetition, you miss the chat target - implied face to face approach not allowed, ditto alternatives. Not nice really, were you.

Mmh.... - excpect it be....

C ya.

"expect" - ecpect it be imminent, was their legal perspective at the time of the interview, an expectation is quite a strong hope but it is not forward guidance. The expectation also related to others and slow downs of progress were also due to events in relation to the relevant interview so a chronological reading of RNS' and chronological retrospective following of interviews and video monologues, none of which negates that it may have been a reasonable, considered point at the time, is for me why I refute point 25, in my own mind.

He wasn't forecasting, it was what be possoble if equipment arrived - there was a change of plan re. equipment so change of posting.

Poster, chronology - nod to (sic) from previous, over there.

No, pont 25 is a false comment by the poater over there, the word is a matter of chronolyg in the context of expectation was obviously not forward guidance, I have previously refenced the video interview (don't have time to search back now) from when it said, a few years ago now, the expectation may well have been raesonable I do not doubt tbe choice of word(s) were considered: expect.... back then.

A sometimes humouros style over there does not give compelling or believable scope to his false comment - his own comment and a false one re. point 25.

Boring echo at 17:27 by Banbury.

I see typos were appalling at 18:16 - no lime in a lemonade etc, just the way I was typing - posture / arm of chair. So apart from.repeat spelling mistakes 18:16 and 17:45 is worth a read for Helpful, though not exclusively - I see I even forgot to say the forum name in the first paragraph - 18:16 but it is pretty clear... page, date and time is as mentioned... within the post.

I had forotten the name of that forum re. 17:45 relevant to both paragraphs, second paragraph refers to 18/01/21 14:46, page 359 on Banbury's poating history.

I alzi noiced early on his RRR posting he said that even if he sidn't lime it (debatable given a couple of his Saga posts) an insider posting on a forum as long as tbey are folliwing the rules it is perfectly legal - in contrast to that specidic post it does not seem to me that Helful is working for RRR or marketing for them as Banbury sufggeted in that early RRR post.

Yes a person might be cliser to the xompany than some other refular posters - I aggree with that aspect he once said but Helful has always been quite open about that - so Banburys criticism seems to e general a mpresented moral stance but I regard it as a repetition to try and entrench negative sentiment, there is implied flexible attitude given some if his other posts on Saga but I am not going back over them.

I read through the vast majority of his posts after too many false comments from him on two different themes pertaining to me and was curious to read his earliest mention of "Red Rock" and his earliest posts on Red Red Rock Resources.

Also Banbury as I referered to last sunday, ypu were very positive on the S.... forum on your very loose - inaccurate application of insider - possibly trying to generate some positive sentiment at the time, in contrast to often spewing negarive perception - in general over there. The specific contrast could be regarded as yourself being hypocritical.

In one of your earliest posts on that forum you mentioned: joke style - a deluded belief that you could mive the market and referred to a political figure when stating your belief that mentioning something enough times gains traction.

... equivalent to bureau of mines...

Re. 17:07 / 14:49, Banbury: "BUMIGEB" is equivalent to Burea for Mining and Geology of Burkina; -publicly available information, easy to find by typing in Bumigeb - Burkina Faso to internetet search engine.

At least a few cracks on the screen protector. Abc... etc. : )

Wooh, cracks on the screen protector: elbow was next to window, back then. ✅

15:48: we are not on equal terms Aimdogs, you disappaered from this share chat for approximately a month last summer but at leat I was nice enough to gently apogise the same morning for spelling your poster name wromg, elbow as next to wondow on a bus as I was typing and hadn't noticed the slight error. I stuck to facts in the coentent and was relatively courteous all things considered - in the justified response, I know we are not on equal terms.

I read the Ukog share chat during Aiminglow's reappearence.

Repetitve and blagging - he does not know the varied age of all shareholders, obviously - vanity perceivable - combined IQ and all that - again.

Says more about you Aimdogs, you are diluting your own weak humour.

Actually looks pretty functional regarding tbe photos with regard to what they are doing - bare feet would be quite good grip on that terain and possibly comfortable - it is not exactly the same - but think running on sand, diito walking.

No heavy lifting obvious, also near surface / at suface gold, not deep underground thus far e.g. Southern Cross / Australia style, not all lifting hobs require toe caps or even boots. I have done 6 by 3 diling cabinets down winding stair cases in boots without toe caps some peole wore trainers when working for that removal comoany, have smashed at a hearth, dug up a garden, carried sacks of rubble - basic small building site labouring - seems to be from memory just basic trainers with decent grip for that one, breaking down a property before it was professionally renovated - paid work, casual labouring - wasn't my own property.

What people have or don't have on their feet is a matter of common sense and potentially risk asssements, I have trained on the track with sonone who ran barefoot and respect the toughning that does if - if by then natural, or graduually toughened tbrough choice of terrrain, growing up etc.

02/08/08 - 04:27: Theeeduke you were making stuff up- a false assetion, I am not a clent of Helpful and we do not know each other. The only person(s) who has brought myself to this share chat is an individual - moi.