Ann: Quarterly Activities Report - December 2023, page-161

I am persistent on such matters so that others here can see how some peoples’ apparently-firm views/opinions are sometimes largely unfounded.
They then use the tactic of stating something to the effect of “why are you so upset about it” or “why are you going on about it” etc, as a hollow deflection from actually addressing the point at hand.
It happens over and over, about various topics, with a few key posters.
In this case it was about the grade of recent production. There were clear implications that the company was being deceptive and “hiding” data that was not “good” or “ideal”; in other words, purposefully not revealing “bad” news.
So, the first step is to clarify what they base the claim/suspicion on;
Then to analyse that “evidence” and see whether it has any merit, and if so, how much, and to discuss if it actually is a reasonable “concern”’or not, and why.
[btw it seems that this progressed in my absence yesterday, with others pointing out that it is likely irrelevant if the recent grade was a bee’s d!ck lower than previous, and that it is likely absurd that it was omitted BECAUSE the company wanted to “hide” it to paint a “rosier” picture.]

This process/approach helps OTHER readers here to scrutinise and assess what is being said or implied, in order to assist THEM with understanding the progress and potential of the company. The fact that it’s a relatively “minor” point or not is not that relevant - they all add up to form a picture of the company.
Imo it is a fruitless exercise to try to “convince” people like Rob etc that they are “wrong” or that their conclusions or assessment are flawed or unreasonable.
As I have noted before, I’m not trying to “change their mind” at all; simply unpacking and analysing what they are saying and WHY, so that others can perhaps see something critical that they have missed, and to better understand the issue.
I expect the absolute SAME process to apply to whatever my views etc may be - people SHOULD indeed be seeking clarification and digging into why and how I have formed them. They should be seeking explanation and discussion. This should help them to DTOR and to form their own views and understanding.
You’ll note that when I provide detail wrt to my views or analysis, the key haters respond with “novel” and “walls of text” etc, seemingly because they don’t want detail to become the norm, and have to do so themselves, imo. It’s far easier to spout one-liners than to actually have to explain and justify what your views/opinions/assessment/conclusions/criticism/etc are actually based on.

I’ll continue to be persistent in this regard, and - in doing so - continue to bring little pieces of insight and clarity to those members who are genuinely seeking to better inform themselves of the progress and potential of this company. There are clearly many who appreciate that persistency, and consistency, and perspective, as the record shows.
Could it be more “efficient” and less “combative”? Of course, if people (yes, all of us) stayed focussed more on the KEY POINTS from the outset. Simple.


GLTAGenuineLTH