Tripartite Agreement, page-201

Slick, yes you're getting my point. The issue on here isn't so much with the company or management (despite the responsibility that they have to succeed in share holders' best interest), but it is moreover an issue about how people can carry on with the types of things you quoted.
Others jump on the chance to insist that I have a grudge about the price, the managers, the fundamentals or that I am not happy with the investment and they do this with their own vested interest. That is, they are just distracting forum readers from my actual opinion about ramp style claims that are being made and how they are doing our reputation no favours. Ramp style claims translate as a lower share price due to it making some commentators look like dodgy 'syndicates' (as someone else mentioned).
Here's an example of what i call a ramp: 'not long now before we get that announcement we have all been waiting for'. Why? Because they won't say why they think that announcement is coming and they give no supporting weight to the claim, but they just make i over and over and over each week, day and sometimes several times a day.
Another example: 'We are only waiting on formalities and we know that all parties want to do business together'. So why do we 'know' they all want to do business together if they have not actually formalised it? And why haven't those formalities been announced to the market as a conditional synergy?

In my opinion if there was a 99% chance of a serious tripartite agreement coming to fruition, then all 3 companies that are involved would have said exactly that, or something like "pending government approval for ESI to formalise it's place as a contingent to a foreign agency agreement with NMDC and NLC, a tripartite agreement will be set in place with the three companies".
If it's that 'in the bag', and if we are only waiting on a nod or two, then why won't company say that in unison or support from the other two companies?
There s a huge gap here and that is fine, it simply needs time to be filled. But some commentators want everyone to think there is no gap and that it is only a fickle box tick that stands between us becoming a part of business with NMDC and NLC.

Again, I will that bet someone asserts that if I don't like the investment to just move on - and that will be proof that they are misunderstanding my message about investor reputation and how the dynamic can effect the shares' reputation too. The fact is that i don't mind the investment, other wise i would be ignoring the fundamentals and just ramping without basis for my words, in order to just make money.

It just aint that simple, obviously. So don't listen to the ones who dumb down the requirements that are in place, of which are also standing in our way to formalising the business we hope to do in India. I've done enough business to know that overlooking the real factors that prevent us from formalising this are very powerful indeed and will require some previously unperceived dynamics yet to overcome. It's clearly not panning out as the managers expected, and as I said that is absolutely and is part and parcel. But I personally just don't like commentators carrying on as though such obstacles don't even exist due to how it makes us look as an entity of investors.