Ann: Chairman's Rocklands Progress Report , page-38

Charlie,

The usual attack on the poster is the go.

To start with may I suggest that you get your fact straight before making those wild accusaations of me?. I wasn't the one that started the questioning of the budget and the underbudgeted figures. I simply agreed with what was written by those people that started it and expressed my ideas accordingly, while trying to correct what Roh was writing which, IMO were totally off mark.

Many posters made the same comments, but, funnily enough, while not totally inconsistent, I am the only one that is copping the full brunt even though none of the post that have posted, said anything to support that what I was saying was wrong.

MORE of the Same.

Now Charlie, are you an Accountant and/or an Auditor, or are you not.?

It happens that I am, and I don't believe that there are may out there that would accept what has been posted here without making any queries. It is all part and parcel of that profession.

Then you wrote:

"For you to suggest there's been some measure of "Creative Accounting" as you wrote is pretty stupid really."

Now Charlie, that is very insultive to say the least and an apology should be extended.

For this is what you wrote and what I replied to you:

Charlie:

"Better to be under their budget than over. With project managers and group accountants across all the numbers in the midst of all the development, $16M under at this stage bodes well.

"Infrastructure costs are currently running at $16m under budget compared to pre-development costing studies. Highly proficient management of assets, and innovative development methods, are resulting in considerable time and costs savings throughout the project."

And me,

"By the way charlie,

And what was the figure/amount original set aside for that budget??
Unless I missed something altogether, I can't recollect ever reading about that part.

Now, is that "Accounting", or "Creative Accounting"?? You tell me."

That was in reply to your post and what you had written in support of your beliefs while making excuses. And I suggest that you reconsider what you wrote, not me. Because it is you that made wild accusations. And it was you that I have asked to tell me, not the company.

Good try though. Petty that it didn't work.

Cheers