Just something to do while we wait. In the market of free ideas, the truth wins out.
He started this discussion with:
"then where may any A-1 lower-zones surface-sample be reported ? ...
you all dodge this question !" (source:
72628691)
even though we previously discussed this (not dodged) then he admitted and backflipped to:
"... if the samples were contaminated then ok so what " (source:
72631325) [in other words acknowledging samples could be contaminated and unrepresentative, = not fit for ASX publishing].
He then contradicted his original position "where... sample be reported" with "any field samples anywhere may not be representative" (source:
72655781), this literally single handedly shows he was trolling the whole time, he was just time wasting and copy + pasting already trodden out arguments and questions simply to pretend they had not been answered when he himself knew the question was a dead end and led to an illogical conclusion.
Now he is changing the subject to what contaminated them, I have already provided my answer, now I am asking for his answer. I have no doubt his answer would mirror my own but just as the previous questions showed, he is simply trying to pretend there is bearish doubt/scepticism where there is no basis for it and will metaphorically filibuster as long as possible to prevent the logical conclusion yet again.
I believe he has actually run out of ideas lol.... that is why he feels the need to repeat the same questions. Then lo' and behold he refutes his own questions with "any field samples anywhere may not be representative".
"
any field samples anywhere may not be representative and I've repeatedly pointed this out to Flam", I checked the old thread, you didn't say they were unrepresentative (in fact if you did, then why are you asking for reported samples lol!?) you simply said they could be contaminated. You never made reference to whether or not the level of contamination could be such that ASX publishing is inappropriate. However, I did, I was the one that repeatedly told you this.
I find it amusing how often you try to take credit for my posts. For example, remember this one? I was amused.
"start with maybe the ~40m TD question and work back ..." (source:71910547) Did you forget that I was the one that gave you that argument? lol.... I also posted it in my bearish analysis in 2022, long before you plagued these threads: 27/07/22, Post #: 62766560
"what does 2ml look like in a empty cup" lol... this was always a distraction as I originally pointed out, it had absolutely nothing to do with the argument.
- If you are trying to argue they would have made multiple samples, this is irrelevant if they are all from the same contaminated and unrepresentative shaker.
- If you are trying to argue a 2mL out of 'x' litre shaker flow, if sampled multiple times could find a needle in the haystack representative sample, I would still argue no, that is illogical if the whole batch/flow is contaminated and unrepresentative.
- If they had contradictory results in the mud logging how can they post a representative sample, unless they said the results ranged from X to Y which could be due to many variables (which I'm sure you can go research for yourself if you don't know).
This concept is just illogical, you can put it back in your recycler to bring out again later.
(20min delay)