Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
The man some of you may know as Perry Stalsis was my husband of over 35 years. He died last month after a long illness, he had been given no more than six months some 14 months ago so he saw himself as having the last laugh. Among the many notes he left for me was one asking me to make contact with seven different organizations and discussion Boards with the message "tell them they'll miss me!". That's all. I really had no idea that he even dealt in shares and have been surprised by how many different ones he had. This one is the only one that was on the list from him and I have no idea why, in fact no idea why any were on the list. Judging from the response from some of the four I've contacted up to now it might have something to do with his sense of the ridiculous which was apparent on the day I first met him forty years ago to the day he went. Anyway, I've done as he asked. I hope it makes some sense to you.
It's rather more than poetic licence, Jazbo. And it was an assertion Jim was making before the 3D arose. Pedantic? No, just unwilling to see deliberately misleading information being used here. It "could" of course refer to anything - what I object to is Jim asserting something as a fact when, clearly, it isn't.
I've given myself a couple of days off, but nothing much seems to have changed while I've been away.
Jim, could we settle once and for all your assertion that we are "in talks" with counter parties?
The actual phrase used in the RNS's is, "contacts have been made with counterparties". This varied in the later ones only in referring to further contacts. This, as you say is over three quarters.
So, evidently, there has been no mention of "talks", or "continuing talks" with anyone. None whatsoever. Those three quarters cover between nine months and a year. How do you explain the complete lack of progress, or of any update other than the reiteration of what was said in the previous RNS?
It's wishful thinking, pure and simple. The careful wording of the releases allows GBP to imply talks without saying explicitly that they are taking place. They aren't lying as such; they are just stringing things out. You've forecast buyouts, a share price of 40p, "interesting weeks ahead", and all manner of jam tomorrow. What happened? I imagine from your endless posts that you are pretty big into this share. I'm not suggesting a lack of progress would be life changing in a damaging way for you - I simply don't know that, any more than I know whether a 10p price would make you rich. What seems clear is that you are not open to any possibility that is not wholly positive, particularly that, like many AIM shares, this one is a nice money pot for the Board of Directors. They have a major holding here and part of your reasoning is that they would not jeopardise it. Again, it begs the question, why not? It's been a nice sinecure for them for a decade. They have really made no progress in that time that is of tangible benefit to shareholders today. How much time should we reasonaby allow them before we, the shareholders, are allowed to question just what the hell they are actually doing while they continue to pay themselves our money?
There, that's polite I think. For now, just any evidence of GBP ever saying they are in talks would shut me up. Can you provide it or not? No need to answer on a different board, or to say you've already answered (you haven't), just point me at the RNS where it was announced.
Of course, Jim is winding you up. The company has never said it is in talks with anyone. Still, very reassuring to hear about "noises" from Namibia!
Nasty stutter Jim.
And by the way, Jim, it's a matter of no importance to me whether anyone buys or sells GBP shares. It's up to them to do their own research. Also, I agree, why would anyone deramp such a small company?
My only beef really is that while the board of directors works its way through a dwindling cash pot (some of which is mine), you insist on asserting they are "in talks" when even they have never said such a thing.
Pinky and Perky! All that money they made from TV and films and they live like a couple of pigs!
That's two posts of mine you've had removed, Jim. Free speech isn't your strong point, is it?
Jim, unbelievably, you've now made four posts in reply to mine - on another board, relating to a different share. The posters on that board have made no comment - I imagine they are uninterested, and probably as bemused as I am. Or indeed as any sane person would be. You really have made yourself look a fool, haven't you?
The upshot of your posts is that you have answered my question (which you haven't), and that I'm not a GBP shareholder, which I am. Some time ago I offered you a wager - if you would lodge a sum of money I would do the same. If I couldn't prove I was a shareholder you could keep the pot, and vice versa. You called me a" t-at" in response to that one (although you used the word in full). Well, if anyone should be awarding themselves that soubriquet it's you. I should imagine you are cringing with embarrassment. You certainly should be.
Jim, even by your standards it's rather bizarre to respond to me on a board relating to a totally different company. I'm still up on BPC by the way.
You've not answered my question of course. If you're ready to state on this board when it was that GBP ever said they were in talks with counter parties I'll offer you an apology and exit the premises. What they have said is that contacts have been made with counter parties. It's not the same - "talks" implies two parties being involved in a discussion. "Contact" could simply mean GBP have approached others and been told to clear off. My bet is on the latter, particularly as over the three quarters that "contact" has been mentioned nothing has happened that has really moved us forward. We've moved from the respectable ASX to concentrate on the AIM casino, and the share price is dropping. You've been talking this share up for 18 months with your jam tomorrow posts ("40p anyone?") and where are we? Money nearly gone, directors happy to draw their nice salaries and, err, nothing else.
Remember, we're talking about GBP. I'll look after my investments elsewhere. Just put me right and I'll apologise.
Jim, I see you're over on ADVFN going on about "talks with counterparties" again. Refresh our memories, when and where were these mentioned in any release by the company? I've asked you many times. You only have to tell me once to shut me up.
As I'm confident you won't reply, despite your continued and ever more desperate posting, I'll just confirm here for anyone who feels you have any credibility - there has never been any such comment by the company. You know that. Yet you continue to say it.
Fair's fair, Jim. You've been posting drivel for 18 months.
There you go with the old, " fortuitous" again, Bonum. As previously mentioned, it means "by chance"; in your latest post the word you are looking for is advantageous.
You're welcome.
Bonum, fortuitous means by chance, not by happy chance, just by chance. The word you are looking for is fortunate.
You're welcome.
Yes, it's the big one alright. Finish the relationship with a top tier international exchange to concentrate on the AIM casino. Classy.
I didn't delete my post. I'm confident I know who got it deleted. As for abuse, as you know you can only libel someone if what you say is untrue. Perhaps someone would care to ask Jim, just to shut me up, when GBP ever said they were in discussions with third parties. He won't tell you, because they never have. He insists on repeating his assertion that they did, although he knows it to be untrue. That's what I call an untruth - how would you define it? Still, as long as we're all nice to each other and follow Jim's lead (the same Jim who called me a t*at in a post, although he didn't use the asterisk), then we're OK, aren't we? As I say, you get what you deserve.
You don't believe it relevant on a GBP share discussion page to take to task for untrue posts its most prolific poster? Every time Jim chooses to invent discussions with third parties, l will call him out. You really do get what you deserve in springing to his defence - he's been promising the earth for 18 months, and look where we are. Jim won't engage with me, so why don't you ask him for his evidence of discussions with third parties? Go on, just as a formality. When he produces it we'll all know where we stand, won't we?
Keith.
1. I have never heard of that saying.
2. Traditionally the English, and indeed the British, have been willing for the most part to do what they are told. It is where our historic reputation as a law abiding people comes from. That's not to say we can't stand up for ourselves, but your general assertion is not true.
3. There is no such thing as the Bill of Human Rights.
Once again, you are talking out of your exhaust pipe, merely reinforcing your persona as a nutcase.
Dutch, the UK does not have the highest death rate in Europe for Covid 19 as a proportion of population. Not by some way.
You seem to like having a dig at the UK, although Holland was I believe grateful to be liberated by the Allies, who included the appeasing British in case you're unaware. Of course, the Princess Irene Brigade fought on the Allied side. Generally three brigades constitute a division. There were six Netherlands SS divisions.
You must understand that Keith, as he has explained, is playing a game of chess, and we mere mortals cannot hope to understand his strategy. All will become clear as he has said when the Jalta Treaty and the martial treaty are concluded.
You're treating him as if he were simply someone who is raving bonkers.
"Nobody is going to make money on oil in the short term, unless you bought Shell/BP right at the bottom a few weeks ago."
I'd prefer not to lose money, though. My ECO shares are going up and BPC are looking OK. I only have three oil shares in my portfolio.
My point in any case is that Jim has been forecasting big things here for over 18 months. I see you haven't chosen to take him to task on his record, which is an abysmal catalogue of hopeless wishful thinking.