will try again, page-22

Sentiment change, in duplicate post.
____________________________________________________________

Macleod - get off your high horsie please, for you are mistaken to be suspicious and you might fall off.

It was an error for some reason. Default setting? Or probably by habit from hitting the same buttons on another forum that night...
For what it's worth, in the absence of any of these big fat juicey money making/losing rumours that are spinning around (undocumented of course), I rate MAE as dead - not a sell for it can't be sold
- not a buy for it is worth less than a single cent when it is in debt OR INSOLVENT. DEAD, currently. Outlook - unable to resurrect IMO.

____________________________________________________________

BTW, in lieu of another discussion here, it's a fact that us householders can't apply for EBITDAs, expenditure before interest tax debts and ammortisation - and that is the only attraction a company would have for a know dog - to write it off as a tax loss IMO. We are not stinky, privelaged, more rights than humans, touched-by-the-hand-of-God Corporations. It's simple to understand that we have less chances in this world to pull the wool over the authorities eyes than corporations and those protected by corporate insurance do.
Anyone who has been a part of the raising and running of an ASX public company - including me for your information - knows that banks and house owners fall under entirely different legislations, laws and allowances.
They are the VC - venture capitalists are head hunters of money holders.

Until further notice, without further documentation, it's my understaning that MAE remains to glide on a broken wing and a million prayers and you are being fed spin/rumour from face-less, gutlessly unnamed sources that need to have the whistle blown on them. Put it on paper if it's true. If you call Peter Colery and he says it's true, demand a copy in writing.
In my experience with the company directly i can say that that is exactly how they worked in my time as an investor - on the phone they make claims and off the phone they make something completely different. Separately, some rumour mongers who are in the know, make gains based on how you responded to undocumented claims - that is, rumours.

NOW as HCRABOC said - this is the fourth time around for the Clarkes and Collery. Fourth go after 3 fails. They have yet to prove they can run a company successfully.
I am concerned that they are getting through with an I recall that Collery remains steadfast that he 'doesn't lie' - but does he put his name to things that he stoically says are facts that are passed on to him via Jeff? So what are facts? Are unwritten things are facts?
Well, according to the court disputes, someones tried to pull a swifty somewhere in that loop and regardless of the outcome and secret squirrels it's all coming out in the wash.


Clarkes and Collery are stepping aside??? Hmmmm...first i've heard of it. Then again, it was postulated that Jeff had stepped down - but he was indeed retained for the same role in a consultain capacity. Nice double speak there...
Well you can believe that he and the clarkes may not continue to run the company but in their mind it might still be a cumbersome discourse for them, as funded by a great employer (MAE, shareholders) because many of its flippant shareholders don't ask for anything they say over the phone in writing and they can never be taken to task on such claims as those that they made to me - recorded btw.

Why are you all operating off rumours????
Whay aren't you all testing these rumours with Peter and if they are confirmed to be true whay aren't you all asking for that info in writing????

Insane.

Well Jeff Clarkes words to me and approx 40 other shareholders - again, recorded mind you - was that this company's production foray into Clear Creek in 2007 would not fail and there was no reason why in October 2007 the company would be on 20mcfpd once they sorted out the alleged hydrate issue - according to him. When asked what if anything might arise as an unseen obstacle - i was told by him that he won't answer that because there is nothing that he can forsee and he didn't want to even entertain the idea. Others witnessed me ask and record this dialogue at the AGM and i have ll the proof i need to present it.
Well didn't that Clear Creek furfie.turn out to be the opposite to succeeding, whatever Jeff wants to call that!!

So if these inept cowboys do continue to run the company - dig in and hold on for they will be leading the horse you're riding on...again. The ride will be emotional for many...except the green new investors who have no idea of the managements track record 3 times over and a quarter of a BILLION dollars lost in shareholder value.

Don't expect they will be out. Control it by applying to the relevent body to ensure they are monitored, investigated or if necessary, taken out of the game for good. Take control.
Hopes break dreams in some cases.

This is a very important point.


L


Bernie,

To offer some fairness i'd like your reply on this:
I'm interested in why, when i do offer constructive criticism, (as invited to do so on the top of this forum) that i am ignored by you, the requestor of information) and yet instead I'm viewed as an easy target to bait for offering that invited opinion, such as at the beginning of this thread.
You have your opinions now Bernie, so do you care to be constructive yourself now by responding or do you only wish to put in the boot yourself? Are we just doing your work for you? And you're ignoring it because it doesn't suit your moodiness about your position with MAE? We didn't cause it. Collery and Clarke caused it.
I think i have worked out the game you play to be frank and i don't think you are completely honest with where you stand on getting everyone else's point of view and never reciprocating but only going awol for extended periods.
I find that suspicious and fair-weather at best.

About the appraisals that you forever request others to give about MAEs game plan - it is only fair that you be reasonable and constructive yourself, in reciprocity of course, by co-appraising....or by my soaking up the points above by others - rather than ignore them - considering that at one stage i personally put a lot of effort into emailing/contacting you privately at your request to which you showed zero appreciation, despite me answering all your worries at the time and my research.
Now i as a courtesy I hope for some fairness and reciprocity, regardless of whether you enjoy others disagreeing with you on the basis that you are a shareholder or not.
Enjoy it or not, but we are worthy to contribute to the forum as ex-investors with a negative take on the company or not. We are equally realistic to current rosey shareholders and we have tried to help you for over 3 years now, at your request and others.
Some of us even tried to warn you that all was not appearing well with MAE a few yrs ago, yet you declined to pay heed and bought more options or heads - as you mentioned here - which is your decision and it was respected, not heckled. There is nothing personal going on here, it's about an investable/non-investable commodity.
Taking stock of that wouldn't be a nasty thing...we didn't create the mess but tried to help others navigate their way out of it.
For example - have you applied to become a CREDITOR a per my suggestion - on the grounds that share holders are a different class and they won't get zip when the beans are counted (only the listed creditors will). If you did apply (only a document that will be accepted) then good on you an thanks for the appreciation - when it comes.

I suggest - AGAIN - that everybody look into this or you are last in line for your crumbs.

LAUTREC - at time my job in life is to stick up for the little guys who can't stick up for themselves - not to rubbish shareholders.