General Discussion Cannabis, page-171

"Of course, Confirmation bias can also be weighted towards negativity if spamming language, content or questioning is used frequently enough when referring to things like, "expenditures, loans, fancy graphics". If repeated frequently enough, it, in itself, can eventually become a form of persuasive and reinforcing argument, which, sometimes can affect sentiment and then becomes a form of bias."

If, there is anyone who could kindly translate that paragraph into something more comprehensible. The sentence structure and dreadful syntax make reading it exceedingly difficult.

"But CGB is not behaving like a Penny Dreadful as per its balance sheet"

I think that must rank as one of the most egregious sentences that has been cobbled together as a justification for the dreadful waste of ~$37.5 million dollars of other people's money and the wallowing SP. And to make matters worse it was presented in bold text - why would you choose to draw attention to the balance sheet?

The balance sheet is built on other peoples money - company transforming placements + CN's - and further share issues. What proportion of the 'balance sheet' is derived from earnings? Seriously ... it staggers me that it is even mentioned.

"But at the end of the day, posters are free to post whatever they like."

Yes ... indeed they are ... indeed they are! Yet my posting frequency and purpose have been questioned on more than one occasion. Does this mean there might be a cessation in questioning the posting motivations of others?

Again (and I don't mind if there's pretty graphs and the like) - is anyone able to comment on whether the goals noted in the "company transforming" prospectus which heralded a 3.5c placement of shares, have been achieved?

And, is anyone able to comment on whether they consider the investment at that time has yielded any value for those who purchased the shares?

Easy questions - some coloured graphs and simple sentences - might be just the ticket!