Ann: Chairman's Address and Presentation to AGM, page-152

Smiles it's only been very few comments by me it's not constant at all.

These few have caused great consternation. I regret if anyone takes offence for me to suggest that it is in any way possible that gender attitudes can come into it in here.

I have my own views on this and many topics. I find the sensitivity around this confounding. I've never told anyone they're stupid.

But I do think that people have refused to face certain facts about the company and in particular about previous management, and it is indeed critically important to understand why certain decisions had to be made.

As I said in the epic 2 posts pre AGM, I was attempting to anticipate what Joe Maeji would think of the current management when deciding how I would vote. As it turned out at the AGM, Joe M thinks very highly of Alan Studley and he made a strong and emotional point about it.

Nobody reported on this except me. I am doing this NOT to to say how great I am, but to show that I can have a useful function and it isn't determined by popular votes or majority views.

I have indeed criticised the narrative that puts GC in the hapless victim camp and Diasource and the Chairman in the baddies camp. In doing so I have promoted as an alternative view. I think this is helpful because we shouldn't just assume that GC or even Matt Sanderson are necessarily going to make the right choices, just because we like them. We need rigour in our thinking, and in that context loyalty can be dangerous.

Implicitly I believe that Joe has ditched the goodies vs baddies narrative as well. I think the Chairman's address was well thought out and contains valuable information. I wouldn't disregard the possibility that he is in fact, a decent and capable person doing an extremely difficult job.

I don't expect you all to agree with me all of the time or even part of the time. Indeed if everyone disagrees with me on something the security of numbers doesn't necessarily make them more right. Surely this is understood?

To me, Hotcopper is a place for a dialectic. It's to exchange ideas, and rigorously test them.

Out of this, it is to be hoped that the truth emerges. This doesn't have to include worrying about whether someone thinks you're implying they're stupid. I don't intentionally insult anyone. If however I logically challenge a previously held view it can be challenging to the person holding it, I see that.

The atmosphere surrounding ADO has been intense because some of us have lost a great deal of money. We have also trusted people who didn't necessarily deserve that trust. People who have traded it are by and large, in a better position.

Everyone is stupid at some point in their lives, and everyone makes mistakes. I was late to the AGM because I lost an earring and I was stupid enough to get distracted by it. I was stupid enough to not trade ADO. But I don't think it's necessary to go into all this to prove I'm human, is it?

My point is that one of the most dangerous things in a discussion board is to buy into a narrative and put aside your critical faculties. The way I see it blokes are always having rigorous debates and if I am doing that too, nobody should feel diminished or demeaned. If you honestly feel that way, then TOU me or ignore me. However, I'd rather you just dealt with the issues that I'm raising and play the ball.

The reason all these issues about the proper narrative, and deconstructing our assumptions.... is Matt Sanderson needs to be fully engaged on behalf of shareholders and thinking creatively and actively and critically. He reads HC and we voted him in. I'm hoping he is about moving forward on the business model and plan that has been established by Alan Studley and others. Because we need to get some runs on the board.