relisting on asx, page-20

Muss,

You can play all the words games that you like but your first and primary statement was false and misleading which was the only reason that I responded.

I don't and never did disagree with your corrected second statement that they could have let it go into recievership and then "participated" in bidding for the IP but that is absolutely not the same thing as just "taking the IP" as per your original statement. You continue to argue that your second statement isn't completely false and therefore my objections to your first statement are "fluffery" and a "semantic play" which seems sort of hypocritical.

As the answers to your latest questions were already covered in my previous posts I don't see any point in responding to them again.

PS. Whenever somebody goes out of their way to state that one of their claims are a "fact" its usually a good indication that rest of their inferences aren't. Readers don't need "psychic powers" to see who is loosy goosey with the facts.