@ans25
I will make an assumption that "the poster" you are referring to in your post
29207933 would be myself as I would be the only person that has previously brought this ($250k loan) to the thread and mainly to do with the management of GPP failing to follow their own Corporate Governance (section 4(b)) and as highlighted in my response to keysole (post
29201192)
The recent mention by myself of loans provided to GPP by Mr King was an opinion to an innocuous statement presented by tuts (post
29181974) whereas he/she suggested that with Mr King providing loans to GPP makes it difficult for investors to come on board. I replied with my opinion, that being, as GPP have historically failed to secure interest in GPP's projects from investment houses the loans provided by Mr King were more of a necessity rather than a willingness. It wasn't in the previous vein of thought but more of a showing of the amount of times Mr King has leant monies for projects and working capital.
I had basically stopped mentioning the 250k loan but your response (post
29188778) to my reply to tuts was in fact not correct as I wasn't referring to the specific loan of $250k but the loans to GPP in general, this recent flutter of posts (today) on the subject could be construed that you would be the instigator of the loan in question re-entering the debate.
As you have drawn davy boy into the debate, lets look at his attempts to quantify the repayment of the "said" loan:
1) It was a misprint - post
27564756
2) I have been talking about 2 seperate loans - post
28960031 To this I took umbrage as the inference either intentional or unintentional was I was a fool and was confusing the 2 seperate loans (apologies if this isn't the case) In my reply I documented everything re: loans provided by Mr King and repayments/amounts in this post
28982798 which made it apparent I wasn't in fact talking about 2 seperate loans.
Again, I was only responding to Davy boy at the time, so I take it he in fact re-ignited the "said" loan debate at that time......
You have also mentioned Scarpa, as offering an explanation and at least he/she made some sense of it but I respectfully disagreed, because the bottom line still remains....... but I will offer an apology to
@Scarpa knowing he/she didn't want to discuss this anymore.
As for your suggestive inference of:
1: Emails were aggressive and/or accusatory
2: The company didn't like it
You can add "in my opinion" but unless you have been shown copies of the emails and been told by the company they didn't like, it is an unfounded opinion.
As for contacting the company:
Your assumption is incorrect, as per post
26103888 I have tried calling them.
And as I have previously mentioned, I have tried personal emailing - to date, only one reply with "someone better suited to answer you query will get back to you" (Suttling)
I have also used their preferred method as per the Corporate Governance - and you guess it, no response.
Finally, you cast aspersions of "the poster" being timid, I would suggest that someone that can't show common decency and that actually addresses comments to "the poster" rather than the person would display the traits you are suggesting.
No it isn't an attempt to derail the threads but an attempt at getting some clarity on a query, but the attacking nature of some posters on the thread warrants a response and because we are all so critical of each other, I provide documents (company's own announcements) to quantify any response, if it means that subjects get posted over and over so be it.
Considering I have failed to get a response, maybe as a very large share holder you could suggest they could offer an explanation then I could do what keysole suggests and shut up on the matter and get back to healthier discussions ........... just saying
All above IMO only
