"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it,...

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical question of perception and reality. Can something exist without being perceived by consciousness? If people ignore negative posts or have them removed from HC perception, does that mean the negatives cease to exist in reality?

The obvious answer would seem to be an emphatic no, the idea reality is only governed by human perception seems as foolish as the 3yo child who sticks their head under a blanket and says "you can't see me because I can't see you". However, HC like the stock market is a game of perception only loosely tethered to physical reality, where share price is the only reality that matters, and price is governed by perception. So yes then, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, so far as the stock market is concerned the tree didn;t fall...

Here I was thinking critical posts were only ignored or removed to avoid cognitive dissonance upsetting fragile mindsets, when it's probably a rational, if Orwellian, process of thought control? Extrapolating to this thread's niobium release, if DRE selectively release only a few positive snippets of the presumably long and detailed mineralogical report, does that mean the mineralogical report "is significant in relation to commercialisation of the Gifford Creek Carbonatite" as DRE claim, and if so, is it significantly good or bad?

How would the market know if the only sounds heard are the sweet nothings of "Recent mineralogical work at the Gifford Creek Carbonatite has confirmed that the dominant niobium mineral is pyrochlore, which is a high niobium mineral (>50%) from which ~95% of global niobium is produced"? DRE drilled diamond met holes at C3 a year ago, and by way of comparison WA1 received "A comprehensive mineralogical characterisation and assessment has been undertaken by ALS Metallurgy Pty Ltd utilising QEMSCAN and XRD techniques with interim results" on only RC samples, just 3 months after drilling started at the middle of nowhere Arunta... so I'm certain DRE's mineralogical report is also 'comprehensive'. (PS... don;t go looking for any information on it, DRE didn;t even name the company who produced it, let alone any detail on the study done?)

So what sort of critical information might DRE's mineralogical report contain? The obvious peer comp is WA1'a interim mineralogical report (https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/68126164/single) that at least answered some of the pertinent questions, such as:

The actual Nb2O5 content of GCC pyrochlore (~70% Nb₂O₅) not just some vague reference to niobium minerals in genera/??

How liberated within the sample medium is the pyrochlore? In the case of WA1 "When sized in the -150+38 µm fraction, all three samples reported over 85% of the dominant niobium bearing mineral as being ‘well-liberated’ or ‘high-grade middlings’ (noting these liberation properties are presented as this represents the size range that flotation would most likely be conducted at)."

Given DRE used diamond core for their mineralogical study, one presumes they had more detailed work doen than for WA1's interim RC analsysis, such as a TESCAN integrated mineralogical analyzer(TIMA-X) in addition to electron probe micro-analysis (EMPA), X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis etc. This data would include data such as modal mineralogy, a complete percentage-based breakdown of the minerals carbonatite in fresh rock, including specific abundance of niobium bearing minerals etc.

Oh well, guess the market has to be satisfied with "Recent mineralogical work has confirmed the presence of coarse grained (>0.30mm) pyrochlore from both weathered and fresh magnesio-carbonatite.", which barely whispers to reality...

GLTAH