Member Info for NikeAir180

Re. 09:33, RNS': Not lost Banbury, you lost... Doesn't matter what happens with this company specific to the context, the false knowledge you pretend as otherwise is why you lost.

30/01/25 - 13:08: It is not "21 years of failure and lies" Capt_Kurt and that post, amongst some of your other scurrilous posts, is blatantly false.

Re. 21:39: It has not been a showcase of deception.

20:57 was a response to 20:38.

If someone has said "We expect it to be immminent" it doesn't mean it will be nor has someone said that it will be. There may have been a perspective on why it could be and that it was a reasonable expectation.

Re. 19:27: No-one stated the content of the second sententence until blueboy1975 did.

The 15:20 post, misrepresented the perspective of the one, he clearly was not making that reply to.

Of the the two who were having a go, it originally read more clearly as a reply to one of them, in the earlier sequence.

False post at 15:20, the reply was not to all three.

The summary of what is in the Rome Resources interview is more interesting than the less accururate summary at 22:23.

A significant percentage of the 19:22 post is inaccurate.

17:54... actually penultimate sentence of 15/01/25 RNS commentary, re. Intention.

Re. 17:25: your first sentence is false. The last sentence if the 15/01/25 RNS expresses intention, intention is not a promise as to the timing / day of resolution - if achieved. The interview from that day was confidant but still not a "promise", containing ifs at relevant points and not promises.

15:29... There is an accessible interview dated 16/11/23, it still doesn't match up to what Banbury said in the second sentence of 11:41 because of the exaggerated distortion - in that sentence - via "all" - a word which was repeated in the third creative sentence, of the post, which is also unsupported by evidence.

The 11/12/23 RNS seems to me, to be the chronological link between relevant RRR RNS' from 15th November 2023 and 28th March 2024 with further context in the annual report of 13/12/24.

Re. 11:41: and following from 14:55 on the otger thread:

There are no RNS in november 2023, to support what Banbury said in the second send sebtence of 11:41, I have not checked vide interviews for that month.

The 15th November 2023 RNS explanied a out the first truck leaving with lithium for export and referenced 200 tonnes, none of which "was in italics" which may or may not be informative for Banbury.

The 11/12/23 RNS explained about shares being issued to someone who helped with the costs of the lithium project (loose use of words by me - remembering some of the gist).

The 28/03/24 RNS half-year report detailed the lithium stockpile was in Beira and Harare and was being stored rather than sold at that time.

The annual report of 13/12/24 explained the comany's tactics regarding storing lithium and not currently selling it, the audited report later explained it was fully impaired for the year. Something that is fully impaired for a year might not be fully impaired for many years ongoing and it has not yet and might never be written off.

Conceptual sniff tests compared to perhaps a nasal spray don't cost anything, the supply capacity for gold and lithium, in general, are different. Discussion of anything similar to nasal sprays, is in my opinion, an ignoring, repetition.

The RNS of 07/10/24 hoped for gold sales by the end of 2024, both the 07/10/24 RNS and 06/11/24 RNS' were referrering to the set up and organisational aspects, including the provision of initial equipment.

Production is required before selling prduced gold, the selling of produced gold was an ambitious hope to get that achieved by the end of lasy year, it was never expressed as a future fact, we also weren't told of discussions woth potential buyers of produced gold presumably because we hadn't reached that stage for a commodity with different supply and demand aspects to the "white gold" for which the guy who makes worthless comments about gold assets, likes to imagine a sniff test while simply ignoring real RNS'.

Conclusion, concluded - can be perceived as positive or negative or in between, even in relation to last month, which relevant to a context required and perhaps requires more time. There is a saying that "time is money" but that does not always apply, the fact that it does not always apply does not negate when it does.

... slightly closer to 247s.

Re. 18:32: that is slighly closer closer to a new balance.

... Nor following all such times.

Re. 17:08: You called it wrong when you expressed your opinion that the deal wth POW, for RRR to own 100% of RRAL would not complete.

You have misqouted a few posters on repeated occasions suggesting other than what they said and been corrected - when you have been selective as to try and present a different contextual backround to what someome has said, you have been corrected.

You have been wrong many times, not just limited to the considerations expressed in this post and have not been corrected, to the specific, or the general, all of the time.