That is not what is required nor expected, nor is it what I said I required or expected. I said:
"... But if you are saying the information presented to the ASX cannot be relied upon to at least be largely true in essence, even if it may be a little stretchy when pressed, then what is the point of trusting anybody with your money in business? ..."
To expect even that is naive now?
Again, if you assume that everyone is going to be lying to you, purely for their own convenience and advantage, you are going to be perpetually incapable of doing honest business with such people. And if you make those assumptions about everyone else it is unlikely that you yourself will be seen to be trustworthy.
I quote what a company says as being a good guide to what they know to be true. Is it 100% true? Probably not. Is it 95% true? Quite likely. Is it likely to get past the ASX or the law in general concerning its accuracy in the most important details? Probably 98% true, depending on what is at risk. But you need to handle language pretty well to evaluate or dispute it.
But its not my values that are on trial here. You don't believe what the company says. But clearly you do not have any facts or predictions or material concerns to present to refute what they say. Why keep posting Fear Uncertainty and Doubt devoid of evidence. If you don't believe this company is telling you the truth what are you still doing here debating it or knocking it. Sell your shares and run!
(20min delay)