Ann: Bowdens Silver Project Update, page-97

Hello Pirate (and with genuine intent not wanting an argument),

I'm not sure about the perjorative use of "cheerlead". I for one am hardly cheerleading, but setting out some objective matters.
From there, it is a gut instinct and personal opinion for you, or others, or me, to make regarding where the shareprice is heading.

It is incorrect to say that at this point the court has said "no". The Court of Appeal has not said no. It never considered the substantive merits.

It has said that the current consent is void for the reason of non-consideration of a required aspect, the power supply, and that a consent process needs to consider that.

I think that whether innocent or deliberate, mischaracterising the limited decision has potential for adverse impact on shareholders or potential shareholders. I can't understand why people do it.

GLTA.