Moose you said " I know if a couple of people who looked into...

Moose you said " I know if a couple of people who looked into these shares and were turned off because when they googled 4DS, hot copper came up very early so they dove in to take a look... based on what they read on hot copper, they decided not to invest."
So who is really doing the damage?

Yes, this is exactly my point Moose ...... although I realise it isn't the point you were trying to make..... I know lots of people who were looking to invest in 4DS,,,, They read (what should have been a positive announcement ) about Infineon....... and were trying to understand why the SP was destroyed....... because it didn't make any sense (unless you knew the background to it) !!! They read the posts on Hot Copper to find out what happened...... they listened to the audio from the AGM (cough cough !!!) ..... all of them could clearly see (from their own research) what management had done to screw things up. They were delighted to read the posts trying to hold management accountable ..... as should happen ! They decided not to invest in 4DS unless there was a change in management or management at least made an attempt to explain the bizarre behaviour (which of course never happened). So who was really doing the damage as you asked ????......the management or the people trying to hold them to account for SP destruction. ???

You go on to arrogantly say : Is it the management who is getting on with the job, or the lazy HC keyboard warriors who share puff quotes out of context and unwilling to do the work to understand what's going on and then blaming management for not understanding...?

Firstly, you are probably in a very small group that think management are doing their job professionally. One of the key responsibilities of a director is to act in the best interests of shareholders. There are many here that have a perfectly valid and reasonable views based on recent history to suggest this may not be the case. Certainly in the absence of any explanation from the company about the debacle over the cap-raise (to name one issue) one is led to that conclusion. To suggest that "people are lazy and unwilling to do the work to understand what is going on and then blaming management for not understanding" .... who the hell do you think you are....... one of Trumps spin merchants ??? I don't know how you can possibly defend management in terms of SP appreciation and communication. YOU clearly understand why he did what he did with the Cap raise....... we would all love to hear it ......just once .... justify it for us all. Also why do you think it is not ok to question the behaviour of management on the forum..... as you correctly say we are supposed to be helping each other create wealth and that includes all NEW investors..... do you plan on misleading all new-comers by not talking about what has happened....... just stick you head in the sand so to speak.

Reasonable new investors are looking to understand the dynamics behind the poor SP performance after a significant de-risk post PL4 ...and ....... successful PL5. Why are you trying to hide this ?? Have you thought about the collateral damage you might cause other people just for your own benefit ??

My issues with PH are only about sensitivity and his style of communication. I have higher standards than what is being exhibited in that regard. He is clearly a clever guy and held in high regard in the industry, very well credentialed and I am sure a lot of things are happening behind the scenes that we can't be privy too. However, I believe there should be more sensitivity and professionalism in the way information is presented to shareholder and the company as a whole is presented. Other than Ting, Peter probably the best link that investors have to get accurate information about what is happening or what is next. I have every right with so much money at stake (personally) to expect his communication to be precise and well considered.

You clearly have different standards....... and I wish you well but please don't tell others what their expectations should be. There is too much history for LTH's ...Many people have felt deeply misled over the years with moving goal posts (even in recognition that we have to adapt to changing market needs). The issue has always been how poorly this has been communicated ....... in some cases not at all until you are left standing there holding the can.

I am still here, because I believe in the tech..... right time and right place and all that...... and because of Ting. However, is it not our job as shareholders to hold management to account if we feel they are not doing their job. If you think they are, then good onya........ but please don't tell others know more what they should accept.

From my point of view, criticism of management is done for the good of the company. I, like others, do it encourage change in what is considered poor behaviour This is purely for the benefit of shareholders / the company. Criticism of management is not done for the fun of it or just to vent frustration.

I agree the criticism has been going on for way too long. It went on for longer than it should have because management failed to address shareholder concerns about the issues, they appeared to just ignore it in the hope it would just go away. So who is really doing the damage Moose ? I didn't see anyone taking responsibility or try to explain the events to shareholders that led to a mass sell off. You have to remember the sell off was a reflection of market sentiment. In my opinion the market made its own mind up about what was reasonable management....... you are drawing a long bow if you think that Hot Copper was the catalyst for the SP destruction. That is living in denial.

I understand how people don't want to talk negatively about the company because they worry about how this reflects badly on the company........
the alternative is to ignore problems and let the status quo reign supreme.

After PL4, David said our market capitalisation should already be about a Billion $ .................... I will leave you with that thought to mull over.