capital raising, page-14

re: capital raising brings yank money Oh charlie ....
I dont know why I am even replying to you when clearly you are only going on like this coz you have stopped taking your risperdal- probably be the last time I bother unless one day you actually post a credible reference or support your opinion with sound rationale -then Ill be all ears -

This has been a good thread with well sourced info and opinions based on substance (and sometimes some cosmic smoke thrown in for good measure lol - but even that makes more sense than you).

You get that on threads where people have what is relative to each, some serious money invested - we are not playing games in the schoolground here charlie, so stop treating it like one

I suppose the only reason I am replying is there is a chance someone reading this might be feeling a bit vulnerable atm for whatever reason - might have a bit of the blackdog hanging over him or some other pressure that is clouding his mind and your nonsence might be just the uncertainty he or she needs to bail and later regret it - that is simply not fair - maybe he's off his risperdal too so he believes you.

- To your question why not wait till the PER is approved before seeking funding at a premium hhmmmm let me think about that one - oh its a hard one hmmm ummm aarrr umm hmmm argh oooh!! oohh oohh thats right!!!

BECAUSE THEY WANT TO GET STARTED on the physical stuff ASAP They wanted to make best use of the limitations the wet imposes by using it to get all the desktop stuff done so that they are good to go as soon as it is dry enough

they have made that clear many times - the last bit of funding needed has been talked about for a good while and most of us here got the idea it was planned heaps ago - just not communicated formally

They made it very clear they were using the wet to get the boring stuff done - they knew the wet would limit what they could do on site ---they could'nt drill nor could they actually start building but the rain wouldn't stop them doing desktop stuff like wworking on the PER nor would it stop them flying to NY and sorting finance nor would it stop them correlating old drill data for area 55 or mount ftch but they have been too busy with the other stuff to get tooo hard into that - in other words they have been using thier time wisely - making the most of the limitations the wet imposes so they are good to go as soon as it is dry enough.

To your suggestion "Talk to the epa in the nt before you reply about the inital per rejection early this century"

Why would anyone do that when you have not offered anything to support your drivel - not an email - not a web link - not a document source - not even a name

If we rang who do we speak to - the girl on reception - am sure she'd have a version - she'd end up talking about the current one - then she'd say oh has it been rejected --then the rumour would go round saying it has been rejected - charlie would believe it and sell - worse still he'd tell other who might believe his unsourced rubbish and later regret it or do we talk to the cleaner - do you know his name or do we speak to the person who looked after the previous very different proposal back then untill CMR wwithdrew it coz of falling metal prices and Doe Run's pull out - what was thier name - do they still work there ---or do we just talk to the first person we can find who will talk to us ---- then what do we say - oh dah um dis bloke charliethebullshter said the PER in 2001 or 2002 sometime earlier this century was rejected to be dah uummm is dat tru - again I have always tried play the ball here rather than the man but you make it pretty hard so get real mate

Anyway - why would we bother the NT EPA about the 2001 proposal that we know CMR withdrew --THEY ARE BUSY PEOPLE up there ---they are busy processing our browns oxide PER ----the only relevant one!

And btw - the clock is probably not ticking coz no announcement that info requested has been sent yet

Again charlie - always happy to be shown where Im wrong, and will even accept that I am if the argument is sourced and credible -