Member Info for NikeAir180

Well perhaps a few seconds would have to have gone by - I almost that wrong. 😄

Okay... any time afterwards, it is possible to unblock someone if they have previously been blocked.

Ten minutes later... it is possible to ublock someone.

Is is possible to unblock someone after having previously blocked them.

Yawny yawn yawn 🫂

Re. 08:42: nor did he say what was put in quotation marks.

Regarding "past hyperbole" at 07:08 - no, Bell did not say that on 08/08/25.

... or perhaps it is a wider reply space - which it is and not so much to do with the font or both - either way - changing reply space to view what to edit, occasionally I forget or miss what should have been corrected.

19:25... previously... more than one... that (not what).

Different layout to to the website it seems, smaller initial font size, late edit.

18:33: Blocking someone on X two days ago after previosly resonding on more than occasion, to someone what had become repetitive does not mean that someone is not supportive of free speech - which some might think is an apect of the common good. Part of freedom within a democracy involves the right to free speech but also involves the right not to listen or to no longer continue to listen - or in another context to stop reading the written communications of someone else.

16:26: If someone was being rhetorical but not literal with the original 5m tonnes post, they might have had an idea what they were taking about - it made sense with the question mark.

Re. 11:35 and 12:09 Banbury maybe it was you 👍👍.

You've done that before according to you, in response to Helpful posting: with sarcasm - my opinion, with a statement in your quite recent posting history - fact.

That it might be you - I know to be a fact. 😎

Re. 6:14: your chronology might be the wrong way round as well as stingy.

.. throughout

Re. 20:59 and 16:00: I don't think he has spouted any nonsense but has been calmly active throught the last several weeks.

13:36: hadn't refreshed the page so at the time had not read your 13:09 post Zumore. It truly did make me smile. 🌕

13:00: there is half-rhyme between agree and read, following a wonky edit of punctuation with too much deletion.

12:08, as an abbreviation which is well known it is often quite mild, some people have tried to pit their wit, if more stern maybe it was proportional to the way it was pitted. Zumore, I never believed you when you said you were impartial, and I don't watch all of your video links, your linked or referred to articles, an exercise of choice is one way to not agree.

Tory Boy became Labour Boy which wasn't a surprise nor would it be if some of those who dish it out when they type are more polite or quieter face to face.

The Bendigo Zone, O'Loughlins license is interesting regarding potential gold and antinomy potential, with some mineralisatiation that appears to be similar to Fosterville as per 06/11/24 RNS. Fostervilee is a mixture of nuggety and gravity gold and from what I read today, it is relatively cheap cost gold project.

Elemental Altus retain a potebtial royalty from Altus stategies relevant to RRAL NBGC - RRaL / NBGC have mutiple licenses.

There have been discoveries relating to Sunday Creek since Wade made those comments, the 06/11/24 RNS also relating to nearby by Kilmore hasn't yet found gold or antinomy similar to nearby Sunday Creek but Fosterville also not to far away and both of those are world class. Elemental Altus retaims royalty interest from Altus Strategies in relation to part of RRAL / NBGC which both relate to multiple licences.