Ann: Becoming a substantial holder, page-134

Whisky...

If you don't agree with something posted, provide an alternative case.

Otherwise the only "dribble" (drivel?) on the threads is confided to pointless responses such as yours.

Plenty of evidence to support my views...such as the very last time people suggested Range were not selling 100m shares (lost count how many times gassed harped on about it) because their position on the register had remained constant.

Then of course we all learn they used 100m of those shares to "settle" a loan...and in the absence of a new holder of said 100m shares, the only logical conclusion is they had been previously been short sold, and the 100m shares were used to cover said short.

Of course, the fact the 100m shares were being dumped on market had been discussed on HC for some time...clearly information seeded into the market.

There you are...two points of argument from my previous post...both supported by real, genuine, uncomplicated facts.

Ie...they actually happened.

Why is it so important to you and gassed that posters avoid questioning the bleeding obvious here?

Look at the stock price, you cannot defend that as it is also real...

What is your angle?

Cheers!