Ann: Renounceable Rights Issue, page-56

ill reply to you as Im probably going to be chastised a little less

Admittedly I havent read this in full. I crystalised the loss and realised gain elsewhere to offset fior the bulk of the holding last year.

I have to admit I am looking at this thinking there may be some light .. somewhere, but where will that light shine ?

Like I said last year the IP appears more valuable than is suggested here.

There is demonstrable success, hypothetical use cases, ongoing research proposed, C14 results still to be delivered, an underwriter for the raise, a strong supporter base, decent on market volunes. Management has not thrown in the towel and has had some form of outburst in the first raise attempt this month at the prospect of not being able to continue.

The ever so savvy here attributed this to the gravy train thesis. Maybe they're correct. Maybe they're not. They're certainly highly definitive in their thinking, and clearly not overly informed. I acknowledge that inbalance is in part due to the seemingly failure of the management to manage dissemination of information. For about the 30th time, are they somehow prevented from articulating what they'd like to say (possibly a foreign concept to many here).

So is the tech valuable? What's its value if it is? Who sees it as valuable and who ends up with it?

I imagine the presentation will be interesting if questions are allowed