Hmm ... in a desperate, scratch around search for anything - to latch onto anything ... and I do mean anything ... some have ... yet again ... drawn conclusions that fall a long way short of what is reasonable. And in doing so they have missed the point by a margin so wide that it defies comprehension.
The company I was referring to in that post - I still hold. I have held for 6 or so years. I had some connections in the mining industry who pointed me in the direction of a particular company. I also knew one of the directors. Yes ... I visited the company and I spoke with some of the key personnel alongside the director that was known to me. These guys are serious players in their industry and they were not interested in peripheral issues. They didn't entreat me - I requested. The two situations are completely different.
Note - if it's only this one thing that you note in this exchange - try and note it.
I asked the rep to answer a very specific question - that question was not answered (as was the same for the questions in my previous post prior to that) - he failed or, chose not to respond ... yet again. So then someone decides to trawl through posts from nearly two years ago - which is ok - I do it myself. Question is why and what's to be gained?
You must surely have cause now to wonder at the motivation of a company rep and or others trawling through old posts of a single poster while at the same time entreating that poster to contact the company ... again.
Ask yourself, why are the answers to relatively easy questions dependent on contacting the company? It makes no sense whatsoever. When things don't make sense it might well mean that there is a part of the contributing information missing or, it is being hidden.
Examine this
"
Our invitation is based on comments made in the following post #30470215." No ... it's not based on that at all. Fair go.
And making me the issue should not be the focus of the CGB rep. Very odd indeed.
The company has been imploring me to contact it for some time now - almost two years - it is claimed. Now it is claimed that the invitation is based on a very old post of mine - please! In fact, I think quoting the words from my old post is a crutch to support this most recent encouragement - it is not based on my comments from 2 years ago - at all.
And what about simply answering the questions - why persist with this circus act of, "
contact the company".
Perhaps, you might like to answer the question I posed yesterday?
Q.Have you or any person who represents or, has represented CGB and or QBL, in their capacity as an employee, director or agent of CGB and or QBL, ever had any discussions about or, made any enquiries or, taken any action whatsoever to discover the identity of or, obtain the contact details of any poster on HC without their knowledge and or consent?If so, for what purpose or, purposes have those discussions, enquiries and or actions been conducted?I think that there's little point debating this nonsense. Is the rep able to answer the question(s) or not? I actually do not care whether he does but he could, at least, say so either way. Whilst this kind of silly "gotcha" guff might excite the cheer squad - it's not fitting for a company rep nor anyone else for that matter.
Over to you.
