one ta perspective, page-9

I`m no chartist but I do know that when doing any comparative analysis,especially historical, it must compare "apples with apples" to get a proper picture of what is being looked at. If variables exist between periods then these must be taken into account to make the comparison meaningful.Was this done by Catherine Davey? You`d think these chartists look at so many Co`s that they dont have the time to go through all the detail of changes/variables properly. It could be a matter of grab the financials/share price/issued stock etc and whip out the graphs

AGS is a "far different beast" to what it was even 18 months ago, let alone a few years back when it had a totally different focus ie primarily gold explorer. I cant see a historical chart comparison going back to when ever being able to produce anything of meaning to the current situation.

It the share did ever reach $6- a few years back, it has no relevance IMO, unless the company was doing the same kind of thing now, which it`s not.

I`m only interested in now, and what`s coming up for AGS, so let them bring it on!!!

Anyway just my thoughts, please let me know if I`m the mark
in my thoughts

Cheers Chicka