Member Info for NikeAir180

02:50: content resubmitted correctly, rather than on the general share chat, had a memory like a goldfish, after some mackerel. : ) 💤

This is wrong, it was very likely just an equity transaction which I understand now. I would like this post be removed please, no -one engaged with the post directly and its removal wouldn't detract from the meaningful development of the thread. Thanks

AI on Chrome agreed with Helpful - when I asked what was the meaning of issuing shares for cash in settlement of professional fees? - shares issued to a sevices provider as payment rather than a cash payment; that was parahrasing of the explanatuon without meaningful difference.

Looks like he regarded his comment from yesterday as speculation; with a recent remark, I had given more weight to the banter in an earlier read than the pure detail of the earlier remark. 🍻

I read it that he was responding to the previous sentence at 06:05 by Banbury and that was more of a nod to speculation, than the reference to "conjecture" in the immediately subsequent sentence.

It doesn't read like it was a placing, blueboy75.

Shares were issued to raise cash, professional fees could then be settled from from the the cash raised.

Incorrect detail because it actually stated: "in settlement of professional fees".

Point 2 - 13:18: to view 9ft and 30ft lorries, also excavators - no mention of buying anything though.

Don't think there was ever any mention of trucking. 😉 💤

Claws: "for exploration and then production" 😺

... settle... prior... link on the bread... thread 😉

The context that Banbury did not refer to as he tried to angle it at 12:32, with this link in attempted support of that, is that actually this intervention at a national level was to settke a dispute between the two companies.

I have answered him before in a very similar way when he has tried that track before, proir to claiming the filter is on. 😼 💤

... And there wasn't enought good context by Bannbury.

... Twas 12:32 😺

12:3 post seems like disparate detals (compared to how I remember them) out of context to try snd convey a context Banbury would like to convey.

Not really Banbury, the second sentence of 13:45 was a pretense of mind reading and other apects of the post were written as if they were matters of fact but were acually presentation of opinions.

09:32: ... non-executive Chairman just appointed. 🍻

13:10: Your naysaying on completion RRAL - last year wrong. Naysaing on RRR getting annual report out in december last year - wrong. Naysaying on getting the half-year reprt out in march of this year - wrong. 2023 - winter, when you were corrected by Bell and accepted the correction was an example of where you had been wrong - prior to his intervention.

Just water so far Banbury, more sustenance later, reckon there will be more valiant back and forth with the tennis.

... Lubumbashi is the correct spelling with respect.