Member Info for NikeAir180

... To be more precise Zumore: your "should" was ignoring the positive scope of could. And if your general attitude is as you described it was expressed on this share chat because of your continued negativism to RRR. There is a junior base materials stock which had a collapsed share price (before my time) but in a phase of nimbleness bought the license to a prospective world class asset, on the morning it announced a farm in from a major it did three multiples, just inder five compared to my average. It later consolidated its shares for good reason, in one wrapper it is still sitting at over 100%, I bought back in smaller in the other one at 45% gain now, in spite of quite recent highs its story compared to its assets still has some way to go but most things aren't entirely predictable including commodities and semtiment. Now, in the positive example, it is at a partial recovery compared to previous highs, it lost value before - after entirely funding an exploration which was not commercial, this time it has help from a major and consolidated after other high value investment. If things work out well (not guaranteed) it is not impossible full recovery is not exceeded, not imossible there is a gain on that.

I'm not sure if, a few years ago, Greatland Gold was needing to recover when it was in the 0's but both Bell was the chairman who brought in a funding partner that helped it have the means to future success. Am not sure he was there or not for the super highs but he contributed to progress.

As for RRR profitable years: 2008, '10, '11, '18, 20, according to annual reports, 2010 calendar year - share price went from 1p to 14.25p according to that year's annual report at the time of writing. There may heve been lower and new starting points since but know Ive had opportunity to take a 30% gain in one wrapper, I continue to like some of the assets and if it ends in faliure so be be it but I also specifically believe in positive scope of could.

Re. 09:43: it is not as one sided as that Zumore, you have ignored the potential for recovery, partial recovery and opportunity, relevant to base materals - opportunity - assets. Fund raises might happen, ups and downs might happen, transformations for better or worse could happen. Your "should"was ignoring could. And although it pertained to the general (as did my response) I think it was because of your specifically negative sentiment to this company.

Bit of a stretch to try and apply the reply Banbury, out of context and I'm really not larking around! : ) Sounds like a good day though... Enjoy your weekend everyone. 🍻 Tea included... : )

Just to clarify and slightly correct an aspect of 03:50, it went private.with the background of a fundraise in different circumstances - in the summer of '24, some posters still seem to have shares in a different format to earlier last year. As I said the changes to its listing does not mean that is not a good business - in what is a very different sector.

Re. 02:51: He never said the energy stock was an absolute dog, he might say that was "mendacious" of you. Agreed you've never posted on Superdry and if you say you've never had a position in it: fair enough but as I have said, that wasn't Helpful's point and he never made up, as you implied... what he cited. It is a bit ambigiuous what you meant from how it was written, given your scorn for RRR, you could have been recommending going back to Superdry because of a favourable comparison, simply because of a lack of scorn, or it might have been (closer to your recent explanation) a less confrontational board for what you said was a bit of ramping.

That poster possibly was a little rampy but it was quite a prospective stock at that time having recently doubled in share price and early stage considerations of a possible takeover to go private, it didn't happen at that time but did later, might have been at a different price but in any case the fact that it delisted does not mean that it isn't a good business, to be fair no-one has said that.

Maybe Helpful's joke to which you responded ended slightly harsh but those who dish it out shouldn't be too surprised at variations of what comes back.

Now, in reality at the time, from having done some reading: there was a balance of opinion and potential and it couldn't literally be, "just as anyone would expect", so I think Helpful was joking.

I take no offence at the filter being on, either way it is even later, so the intention is not for this to be read before dawn.

I think we can all agree the weather is nice at the moment and the simple enjoyments top the undulating rhythyms of the multiple back and forth.

Banbury, your'e being a bot noisy...

He's more precise than you put it at 19:54 Banbury with regard to RNS'. The 07/10/24 RNS mentined continuing moving towards gold production... sales were hoped for by the end of the year... that was precise. 06/11/24 RNS explained which equipment had been payed for. 18/10/24 RNS explained equipment had arrived in Ougadougou... which may have been a continuation of moving towards gold production.

Re. 10:35: Theeeduke, in response to you first and last sentence I gave an opinion at 12:39 yesterday in response to your 12:34 post. Regarding other aspects of 10:35, I have more than one opinion but I still sail positively, although literally: I would have to pay for a trip. : )

I was going to answer the removed but not complaining.

Re. 07:41, and 07:18: Boring Boy, the fibber is you.

... fluctuations...

Re. 20:58: Not much of a spike Banbury, might have been a fluctuation but according to a three year chart it looks quite flat for around a year and one month ago. There was a TR-1 the day after the post you discussed and that RNS was on 07/02/24 and looked like it was a reduced holding. Difficult to know what are the main determining factors for fluctions. The 05/02/24 RNS was reasonably worded to the information at the time and there have been furher official and non-official communications since then.

I think you might be giving a true account of your 06/02/24 post but it remains that Helpful didn't make up his post at 14:35 with the citation.

You said earlier yesterday, to Helpful, that you could guarantee that you hadn't mentioned before a referred to lithium stock, that is incorrect, I remember you mentioning it, whether duscussion of it was originated by you or not, you have, previously, by comparison favoured it when you were being negative about RRR.

Should is not will, no matter how many times you try.

Ha ha, also should is not will and once is not yet, still.

More ore than ire... maybe.

20:08: For your filter...

Banbury, re. 19:21

Re. 19:59: those weren't predictions, nor were they statements of things that had happened - so not any of them was a lie, Blueboy1975.

Re. 19:48: A date and time of post... Blueboy1975, you have got many things wrong which could be factually proved othetwise. Like Banbury you are focused on Helpful and like Banbury you have claimed too many years of RRR without any success. Profitable years from memory are 2008, '10, '11, '18 and '20 according to annual reports.

Helpful, it looked like something I had read before. The 16:34 post was rather curious because of that.