Hey Country, what was dean's excuse for leaving out Stehn's five 2017 holes drilled into Pritchard Well btw?
"character assassination campaign"... 
dial it up mate, not sure people got your point just banging on about defamation. Fair and accurate commentary about publicly available information is not defamatory. If it reflects poorly on those who released source information and statements, that's on them not me pointing it out.
For example, the statement "only one hole drilled below 100m which returned 4m @ 3.8 g/t Au from 176m(STMRC005) and highlights the potential of the lode to continue at depth (Figure 3)" is not true or a fair reflection of previous drilling at the Star" is deceptive imo because it excludes credible Fox Resources LS plotting other holes drilled below 100m with NSI assay results, regardless that the company cannot find the hole coordinates and thus some doubt about the pierce point accuracy exists. It was deceptive in P120's opinion (they identified the existence and pierce points of Fox Resource's LS, a credible, ASX listed mining company).
Many investors seem happy the existence of this drilling was hidden by DRE with commentary that the Star that it was untested and open below 100m.
"2ic is attacking our collective investment via this activity, and potentially new investment of readers who listen to his "authority"... this is the real issue here, many posters are not happy to have excluded or obscured data, and/or commentary from a different perspective from management, brought to the attention of potential investors. DRE is obviously bias to talking their share price up, any contradictory commentary won;t help bring in new investors at higher prices to sell into for a profit.
How to deal with unhelpful posters of contradictory commentary on HC? Attack them and their credibility, report posts for moderation to control the narrative, threaten them with legal action to scare them off, generally gang up and bully them off the thread and get it back to bullish only and hopefully attract newbies in at higher prices. This is the oldest play book on HC, been going on against me since 2006 in any case, but I refuse to be bullied into silence. Quite the opposite, if I relent from making fair and accurate observations in the face of bullying it sends the message to all threads that things can stay bull-only if you gang up and attack posters with negative opinions. The more you try to bully me off, the more inclined I am to hang around pointing out inconvenient truths and observations.
While we are waiting on Dean's sock puppet for the reason why Prichard Well drilling was excluded from DRE's releases, I'll give the thread my explanation.
"That is also why we haven’t included the 3m @ 10g/t from Pritchard’s because we couldn’t verify those, and they certainly help the story!"
Really... the data is all there in WAMEX, but it severely downgrades the project's potential instead of adding sizzle and upside value. The same Prime Minerals 2008 Ann Rep DRE referenced in their Satr of Managroon LS (WAMEX Report A79994) has the drill collar coordinates (... seriously, I couldn't make thisstuff up if I tried).
Then Stehn in 2017 goes and re-drill this hole as part of their effort to test PW...
Look at all that quartz in hole PWC02... look at the gold grades, barely above detection. As they say in Texas... all hat, no cattle.
Is my reporting to HC this information an "attack on our collective investment" or just valuable information that many others have probably already worked out? Given it's so obvious and accessible in the same WAMEX reports DRE used (simply search "Star of Mangaroon" and up they pop) is it "character assassination" to express my disappointment at the exclusion of this data by DRE's competent person and managing director? One doesn;t have to be cynical to wonder why historical Pritchard Well drilling was left out, but when one sees similar omissions and questionable presentations about exploration results time and time again, one would be forgiven becoming cynical...
PS
He has admitted - his words not mine:1. buying DRE shares a couple of days before a cap raise, (false, please retract)2. to having never discovered any deposit (not an exploration geo (false, please retract)., so what is the point of applying mine assessment (a discovered and defined deposit) of early drill results that are OBVIOUSLY INCOMPLETE and inadequate for the purpose of assessing the merits of further work on a potential discovery?,3. of having to work alone, (false, please retract)4. of avoiding the "greasy pole" of the corporate world because he has to work alone (gee I wonder why - sarcasm), (false, please retract)5. to being lazy and,6. to having a massive ego (implied at least),7. to have been threatened with legal action (who would wonder why)... all this just for starters.
(20min delay)