Member Info for Stackhigher

Just to warn that we can't be sure resistance will hold when we do drop back into the 5s. It could go low-5s.

CMG. 8p represents a huge premium against today's price. It's a terrible price.

I can do this all day sport 😄

Paying 15-35% too much for your shares is always going to be bad investing, CMG. 8p would only be a good buy in price if this was about to sell for multiples, and I've told you repeatedly that isn't going to happen. So it's a bad buy in against future share prices.

"I have stated, I'm happy buying shares . Any price

below 8p."

That's you, CMG.

Why are you buying at 7p+ when knowledgeable posters told you this was going to happen? Or did you just say the above last week to bait others into buying... Like a brainless ramper?

Can't have it both ways, poppet.

Do you just dream about top ups then, CMG? Think that's even weirder. You said 7p and 8p were good top up prices... But did you instead follow my advice and wait for 5s (incoming)?

I think he's done his own research, hence the lack of top up, CMG. Maybe if you'd done some (or listened to me) you wouldn't have topped up in the 7s. Could have got 15-20% more shares for your money....

Absolutely B3ast. If the chumps actually topped up when they were trying to convince others to buy in, they'll be deep underwater.

Also, add, you'll notice I only call out those who set themselves up. You're never wrong, and you never change your (often fanciful) assumptions. Hence you're a good target.

I think you'll find it's the other way round. Those who already listen to sensible posters like me have saved themselves from losses, so they aren't offended by my predictions. Those who listed to the brainless rampers against my advice won't like what I say, but I can't be responsible for the wreckless nonsense posted by the ill-informed

Placing in the 5s looking more likely by the day.

Was I right about fast and smart?

Was I right about a drop from 30s?

From 20s?

From 10s?

Was I right about selling the cornerstone shares in desperation?

Was I right when I said we weren't any more likely to sell after the last PFS?

Was I right about BHP and NM decreasing their % stake over time?

Was I right about the other exploration sites being a financial liability rather than a near-term asset?

Brave to bet against my latest prediction, add. Or stupid. I know which camp most here belong to 👍

Does 'doing the weasel' hurt your spine, CMG, or do you not need to worry about that?

I think I'm safe, add. It hasn't happened to date and the current situation is dire. The desperation revealed by selling our own shares to Jiangxi for peanuts has told the market everything it needs to know. Companies confident of securing further funding don't dilute existing holders at close to historic low prices when things are going well.

Excitement about Dan's Plan is as misplaced as excitement about Bob's Bat was. I tried to tell you the that 'fast and smart' would rely on a buyer we didn't have... People obviously didn't listen. History is now repeating itself.

Plenty of 'investors' here said we wouldn't get down into the 5s again. Remember who they are...

Also, a final simple check to nail this nonsense:

1) did models point to a rise in average temperature, and were the correct?

2) has the average temperature increased by over 1⁰C since industrialization?

So the models all agree (do you expect models using different parameters and data sets to produce exactly the same number? Because that's a whole other misunderstanding) and the Earth is warming. No other explanation matches the evidence as well as increased CO2 levels, caused by anthropological activities, causing increased absorbtion of Earth's IR emissions.

It doesn't need over complicating. I know conspiracy theorists love to believe they're being lied to, because it plays to their victim narrative, but the science does them no favours.

If that were true, madpunter, do you accept that literature presented pre- and post- 1997 would use different values? That is to say, if this was a concerted effort (as part of a conspiracy), there would be no evidence of numerical refinement or improved historical data interpretations being used? It would be less 'scientific process' (as it is) and more 'switch flicked' (as conspiracy theorists and poor scientists like to suggest)?

Oil companies fund research, too...

His nonsense about CO2 saturation and his demonstrably misleading statements about the logarithmic nature of co2's warming effect are so easy to disprove, I think even you could figure it out, slug.

Have you got anyone using actual empirical evidence, or are all the people you follow looney toons? It's no wonder fossil fuel apologists get lumped in with flat earthers. The evidence is out there and it's really easy to understand: just do a bit of reading.

Slug, it's a numbers game. Are you claiming that the thousands of scientists who know these chaps are clowns are all so lacking in principles that they're taking 'big eco' money in favour of 'big oil' money?

Jog on chap- you're just being contrary. No way you actually believe that.

I can't believe you've admitted this is where you get your nonsense from, slug. I knew you were easily led but this is tragic. To think, you once claimed to be capable of critical thought 😬

At least you've negated the need for further climate discussion on this board. You might as well have said you base your nonsense on something you heard on Play School.

Sorry dbw, missed this.

It was me. Had to settle for 0.65p gain on that trade 👍

Next one will be even tastier. Look what's happening to the sp now...

How can it come home to roost, rich? Genuinely intrigued

Brainless rampers seem rattled. Just need a few of them to claim they've bought big today (obviously with no evidence, because they're underwater and can't afford to lose more) and I'd say we're almost guaranteed 5s before Easter.