Member Info for NikeAir180

Re. 19:11: 13/12/24 annual report: ALR - full impairment, for the year.

The 19:23 post was replying to 19:04.

17:04: I don't recall Bell mentioning $1billion, a post regarding separate project value outside of RRR with supporting details - I haven't yet read through, that and similar on this share chat does not reflect on Bell or Wilde. I don't think the lithium went badly as you put it but fairly to Beira and Harare as per RNS half-year report of 28/03/24.

The photos were explained in reply to a creative article where I consider that writer to have editorial control, via the comments section by Bell and supported by Winnifrith.

"They" relevant to RRR and the company boss have not been hyping anything that you have referred to. There is hype within your negativism and post heading.

Re: 16:16 and 15:45: There is a mining compensation fund - as a matter of current fact and without any other confirmatory knowledge from research - irrespective of RRR but not the country.

... invested into their business...

Re. 08:37, you might be aiming low with your hopes for that stock, but you got it significantly wrong with your comment(s) on 26/07/24 as proven by the fact there was more than one 200% high on 29/07/24. There was good news on one of their investments recently and they are trying to progress a separate project.

With this one, RRR have invested into their businss during the last 12 months.

Official communications from 24/01/25, 29/01/25 and 19/02/25, as well as the others pertaining to various assets, are written from a different perspective than Banbury's, without the hype.

There was once an episode of a political round up of the week where a senior politician was explaning the prejudice she had to break down, held by some towards a group of people, during her earlier work as a constituency MP; she was going to mention a common saying from the time but was stopped immediately by the host who either recognised it or had a quick instinct. The politician repeated the attempt but was quickly stopped again, then tried to make a reflective summary point for something that was also anecdotal, but was stopped again by the annoyed host. Both his instinct, and mine as the viewer, were that that attempted repeat was not just potentially providing an example but would have been repeating the offense caused by the comment.

The politician had become complacent about her previous moral superioty and was very close to forgetting the respect that she had sought to protect.

An ostrich would protect the eggs and ignore the gold. Sensible ostrich... Gold can buy free range eggs, happy hens and a whole farrm.

19:51: (Y)ep, but just the last bit...

The first bit was why, unless it wasn't.

Potential sub-text aside, I missed the r until revisiting before responding to your reply - so good sunglasses.

Re. 19:13: Banbury, your reply to Theeeduke is not relevant as an answer. One who has been "pushing it" is you - reminder RRAL deal between RRR and POW for 100% ownership to RRR completed, on more than one occasion you said it it was in trouble and on one occasion you said (in your opinion...) that it would not complete. There are quite a few licences for RRAL / NBGC compared to RRR's other publicly listed assets so on that logic and not limited by such concentration and following research, it seems to me, RRR has a few... interesting assets.

Theeeduke, I have exited a couple of stocks before there was a temporary suspension and a full delisting with the other, sepatately another company went private though - there was a listed shell stock as a legacy. The first two I was out in time, not doing too badly with one of them, quite well with another, loss on the one that went private but had one opportunity to do very nicely on it - hindsight, still think the product is good and that one had nothing to do with mining and was pre-cashflow.

The thing with the above stocks, I neither ramped or deramped on share chats (though would comment from time to time) even when one 8 bagged - depending on timing and averages, how many? definitely an 8+ bagger available within that context, I never predicted one way or another and I did quite well on thaf one but it has ultimately been a mixed story, with plenty of stuff still to do - potentially.

So for none of the above is there a reason to have said I was right or wrong, and the share chats were not filled with the same amounts of nonsense as with this one.

I don't blame anyone else for losses I incur, they are my own responsibility, am not goint to waste time blaming someone else or trying to be a clever wit about it. I don't need to ramp if if I think a stock could do well, would rather let things take their course and if not a good upside, so be it.

RRR currently has exposure to a few interesting assets, those assets could still be interesting: whether there was a suspension for a positive reason of because of a negative one.

Your question to me, is not relevant.

Noting 17:26 post should in the third paragraph contain: you referred to... Rather than "-your referred to...".

Although from the context it can be undestood what was meant it could still be regarded as a meaningful difference which is why the the typo / error has been corrected in this post.

Re. 14:20: The sentiment you exprsessed by way of reply is incorrect Banbury. I actually think the article via that link is a slightly loose interpetation but you replaced "agreed" with "received" in your 14:20 post and that negates the sentiment you expressed with the boldness of your criticism towards another poster.

Re. 15:25: Zumore, it seems to me that you rate your opinion quite highly by where and how you have positioned it - your final sentence proves why the penultimate one was false. But that was an element of humour in your closing remarks? Perhaps you were being dismissive of several by the non-literal use of "everybody" before contrasting with your own expressed opinion. You have been generous to yourself with some of your posts on this share chat and have sometimes demonstrated that because you want to post something you will, regardless of the chat rules and on occasion - regardless of the truth e.g. when suggesting to News, last year, that your posting record for eleven years (leading up to said post) was also perfect.

You said recently to me and referenced similar, to another, something along the lines of: you realised quite soon afterwards that that was mistaken, remembering something else to the contrary (rather than ignoring it). But the false reply from last year was neither corrected nearer the time nor deleted, and was still readable within the last few weeks.

Various people have deleted tweets, including English speaking and not with regard to north-American politicians. I can recall a tweet I read about in a newspaper far worse than an error of judgement on social media -your referred to (if true). Forgivemess is sometimes valid and more easily so if it is before obtaining office, a constituency and so on. Apologising and deleting or even if just deleting - is for many people... acknowledging one's error.

You didn't seem to quick or accepepting, to acknowledge a couple of your errors historically, in the context of recent convesation.

Re. 07/10/24 RNS: "and we hope will lead to", was replaced, putting instead: "with" during the 06:49 post by Banbury, and this is a slight correction of my 10:06 post.

Banbury's 06:49 post with regard to 07/10/24 RNS contains a false quotation. He replaced the words "and we hope to lead to", putting instead: "with".

16:47 post by Banbury: third sentence, fourth sentence and sixth sentence are false; the final sentence might be imprecise.

... completely separated...

Re. 15:55 - That is very different, GMET was spun out of POW , the value of those shares are multiples... of the original investment and the cash is for some of the shares regarding POW's holding in GMET, now a reduced holding, it isn't for an asset that was taken from them, it isn't for an asset, they had been cometely seperated from the value of, and the market caps of both companies are very different so proportional values of cash to market cap are different.