Ann: Up to 9% Copper in Big One Deposit Assays, page-68

@ozbucheron In reply to your post addressed specifically to me, I provide the courtesy of a reply.
From your post, it is marked as "Disclosure: Not Held. Sentiment: Sell."

However, you inform in your said post that "ANY POTENTIAL INVESTOR" cant ask a company "questions to CLARIFY UNCERTAINTIES"?

Of course, one may ask anything that can be answered if one is a POTENTIAL INVESTOR. However, there appears to be a contradiction? How? From this thread only, I have NOT read that you are IN FACT wanting to become a potential investor as you have NOT said so? If one were to be interested, then it should NOT be "SELL" marked officially as sentiment but rather "NONE" [sentiment]. Why? One is NOT sure and therefore one wants to know more but to mark "SELL" does appear to suggest or may suggest that the SENTIMENT is indicating SELL?

From your posts, your comments are of a TECHNICAL NATURE going into the way holes are done or not done [that sort of line] . In the last instance, one is given an idea earlier that the emphasis now falls on Mark Biggs, Competent Person [Geo] as evidenced by the post by seals to me? Another poster also got the idea it is about Mr Biggs like me?

This subject matter has to find a solution for the few that want to know & the best avenue is to approach the co as I have elucidated. I also stated that it is my understanding from the rules of disallowed & AIM via the Handbook but I may not be up to the very minute.

As for lawyers, that is part of a democracy and rule of law in that, it is the last line to achieve a "definite" outcome in which EXPERT WITNESSES will be called and every minute detail can have a going over. In the end, it will be the litigant is right or the expert witnesses, co etc. I mentioned a case wherein a group felt they could run a UK listed AIM co better, again, this is not right or that. However, the circumstances were that gold was too low to be able to take things forward. Only way to get a satisfactory outcome is not X is right, Y is wrong. The Courts decide upon an extensive hearing.

One has never heard of a LONDON LISTED AIM CO having potential investor taking on technical data which is the domain of the geologist. It would appear that logically it would appear to be "EXTERNAL OVERSIGHT via questions?"

If one were an expert, there are so many co*s out there that would merit your investment rather than one that you are not fully satisfied? Surely, logical. With thanks. Yours respectfully, sol1