Member Info for ProfitSniffer

Not offended at all, just calling you out for the thick, obnoxious, cantankerous old twat that you are.

If you're offended, or to put it more precisely offender on others behalf by words, then it's you who has a problem, not I

Words are not weapons.

Spot on Fat Jenny, his spite and rudeness are bordering on psychotic. Every day he comes on here calling people imbeciles when he can't do basic Maths, read an RNS or spell words that a six year old could manage to do.

He feels that he is the self-elected board Sheriff and moral arbiter over every view that everybody is allowed or not allowed to have. He is the pub bore in his mustard cords that nobody will talk to. But for the generosity of indigenous Brits, his father would not have been allowed to settle here and he'd have never have enjoyed the life that he has done, yet still he is bitter and angry towards his hosts - those true Brits.

He's a classic champagne socialist, made his fortune now wants to kick away the ladder so that nobody else can prosper. A disgusting, spineless coward of a man who would be near the top of my list for a good clearout if we were to finally heal the UK.

Science is NOT a democracy, garbage models prove nothing.

59.5% or 70%?

59.5% or 70% of ENSA for the PROPOSITION

It's not hard, pick one

But do you believe that BHP only wanted 59.5% of ENSA? Or were you WRONG?

The usual false diatribe, but can't admit you got the details of the proposition wrong?

You're a bare faced liar, you will face the consequences when you meet your maker

#Jimmy

Precisely! But this weasel at the time thought that meant 70% of our 85% share. He was wrong and CANNOT ADMIT IT

Quady, if you're not true to your word, perhaps refrain from making such ridiculous statements as "I'm happy to admit I am wrong when shown"

You do understand that a bid doesn't mean total control of a company? It is simple and offer of something for something in return

So whether it was a bid, an offer, a proposition or any other way of describing it, you thought it meant in return for 59.5% of ENSA as per your post at the time, which I am happy to put up again if you like

Trying to squirm out of it using some bizarre interpretation of a what a bid is, just makes you look even more ridiculous

The whole forum is laughing at you.

I called it an offer. If was an offer for 70% of ENSA which you interpreted (wrongly) as "70% of our share of ENSA" and calculated at 59.5% of ENSA

You were completely wrong and here we are nine years later, you're still unable to accept that you got it wrong.

What a steaming turd you are. A spineless human being

#Jimmy

He can't have been a stockbroker, he lacks fundamental knowledge.

You can get in line Quady, I'm still waiting for you to apologise to me for getting BHPs offer completely mixed up

I showed you the correct interpretation and you've dismissed and ignored it since. What happened to this "happy to be shown when I'm wrong" claim of yours?

You're a scumbag. Plain and simple

It's insignificant, negligible. It's estimated to be for the UK 0.0004% . Statistically irrelevant and certainly not worth destroying an entire economy over. Ang given that China is raising its emissions by one UK worth every single year, even if we went back to horses and carts and stopped eating meat, our work would be undone by them in a year. But you have to be a special kind of stupid to believe that our emissions have any impact whatsoever on the climate.

Your turn.....70% or 59.5% - why can't you answer the question?

You can't read Quady. Of course the climate changes, it always has and always will. I simply believe(know) that anything man does has little to no impact on the climate changing.

Now was it 70% of ENSA or 59.5% of ENSA that BHP offered for? We're still waiting for your clarification. A five year old could answer it, can you?

My prediction is that the new subsidy company or division will be announced with some backing for exploration from our yellow friends.

A while? As in never!

Have you figured out what BHP wanted in 2016 yet or do you still stand by it being 59.5% of ENSA

Who would trust your workings when you made such a glaring error?

On a L2 or L3 data feed. Perhaps his hasn't got comma formatting in the total bid/ask volume field and as such he's reading it 10x what it is

There is no such block, the TOTAL sell volume is 4.9m

I don't know how he is consistently reading it as an order of magnitude incorrect

Rodney, he just doesn't get it - he's on the scale so he suffers from tunnel vision. When he thinks he's right, he's so absolutely certain that he's right that he blocks out/ignores or at best tries to slide away from any facts that show that he is wrong.

For may years now he has consistently evaded admitting that he was wrong in thinking BHP offered for 70% of ENSA which in his tiny little mind he thought meant 70% of Solgold's share ENSA which he calculated at 59.5% of ENSA. He was wrong, BHP wanted 70% of ENSA

He refuses to admit how wrong he was on this and instead tries to skirt around the issue to avoid admitting it. Everyone has seen him do it time and time and again, his credibility if he had any is shot by this alone.

In a scene from One Flew over the Cuckoo's nest, he's the one rocking back and forth with an inane grin on his face shouting we're going to production

Nurse Ratched.......

I think he's more one offering bags of sweeties for a ride in his car to see a puppy dog

#Jimmy

Quady simply doesn't understand how to calculate a NAV in mining. It is not the same as running a chain of Woolworths

P/NAV is an interesting measure. Very interesting when you look at Solgold and it's disconnected price to asset valuation in a country that is no more risky than any other now that the low hanging fruit is all gone on this planet.