No. I simply can't digest more whimsical chaff for risk of...

First 129 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
MSQ9

409 Posts.

643

08/03/22

08:57

Post #: 60048836
Share

Originally posted by naomhan: ↑

So you didn't read it but just assume you're right I'll assume then that you simply don't have a reasonable response.

The problem with "ISX's very respected lawyers" (and I agree, they are), is that ASX also have very respected lawyers. Both are totally capable of accepting a case for money.

Why would lawyers mention litigation risk in a crisp, concise manner. Again you've clearly never worked with a lawyer. They are experts at covering themselves. Of course they mentioned litigation risk. You can't have a 10 minute discussion between 2 lawyers without someone covering their backside.

"their legal counsel also stating they had nothing and pursuit of the "spitballing" back of the envelope sentiment would expose them to significant legal risk."

No, that isn't correct. No one said they had nothing - simply didn't happen. The spitballing quote was unrelated. And back of the envelope was invented by you and means nothing. Your invented/out-of-context rhetoric to paint the picture you want doesn't make it evidence.

Expand

No. I simply can't digest more whimsical chaff for risk of intellectual death.

Why would I read a further variation of your theories for any other reason than to compound the profoundness of their fallacious conclusions, if that is at all possible.

Zoom meeting to attend, must dash.

Last edited by MSQ9: 08/03/22

ISX Price at posting: $1.07 Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
13 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply