Ann: Ceasing to be a substantial holder, page-110

So all that was posted on HC about LIN suppressing information etc is crap. It’s important that facts are known especially with so many down rampers looking to discredit the company and its management.

I dont believe Ive seen any down rampers looking to discredit the company and its management? Simply posters discussing the companys activities observed. Please post any examples if I am wrong.

If you say the company doesnt have to perform the role you mention in checkng holdings. Doesnt it also mean they could if they felt the need too? Considering this isnt the first time its happened it would surely be an advisable move.
Further like DDZ says. The point is we are talking about a family relative of the chairman and business associate of a board member. They are extremely well connected more than any average holder. Would these company members have been consulted in some form? Would they have known about this activity? Id suspect thered be a strong possibility one of them would. Its a family member. But yet the chairman and/or board member didnt think to advise the holder to inform the ASX when he/they noted such activity didnt occur? It had been going on for four months? Thats the dubious aspect here. The interlinking facts where concerning activities have seemingly been overlooked for those clpser to the company and hold more personal value to members in the company. This has happened before. So youd think theyd be on the lookout for it not to occur again. Relative/friend or not..

I hope you told Shannon holders were displeased.