Ann: Clariification of CEO Change & Company Updat, page-51

re: Ann: Clariification of CEO Change & Compa... All this discussion about who called this stock correctly – and wanting credit for doing so - needs a reality check.

The basis for the earlier optimism was based on 2 main points:

1. We were led to believe that the earlier production rate was based on the actual or observed value over 7 days. However, we now know it was not. In fact it was based on a calculated rate – by multiplying the optimum hourly throughput rate x 5 days. But the optimum hourly rate was about half the average.

2. It was not disclosed that quality of NMP was too variable for market.

In the absence of the true facts and coupled with other information the earlier optimism and price was justified.

Investors are entitled to expect the info the company supplies is accurate and make investment decisions accordingly.

But in this case – and with many other stocks, we were given “questionable” info.

No posters queried the derivation or accuracy of company claims with respect to above.

Predictors of doom used imported concepts (astrology / guesswork) of their own making and with no factual basis for their own purpose, to predict the actual result.

There’s no skill in that.