Please help me to see in what way I have “twisted what you...

Please help me to see in what way I have “twisted what you said”.

You stated that the bod should not have rejected an offer. Clearly you have now seen that there was no such “offer” nor rejection of such.

Then you moved that to rejection of non-binding indicative proposals which were conditional (some distance from an “offer” wouldn’t you agree). You were then shown that in fact it was ALB which withdrew from that proposal and were invited to explain how that withdrawal was on the basis of something related to “offered” price - you didn’t.

You then suggested that reasons for the recent change of direction in funding amount was the reason for which ALB didn’t proceed with that “offer”.

I asked if you were now charging the thesis for your original position and suggested that would be a difficult thing for ALB to have based their withdrawal on at the time given the basis of that change of position was only made known by WMcK in the last few days.

And now you are unable to justify your original thesis or any of your changed ones.

Your entire rationale for being here is now obvious for all to see - and I would suggest similar rationale exists in other threads on which you have commented of recent.

Now I’ve got nothing against the contrary view point nor anything inherently against a person choosing to take a short trade. But I do have concerns with how some “shorters” present themselves in these threads - masquerading with earnest intent to express their concerns but failing to have a justifiable basis upon which to found those concerns.

So, if you are negative the stock - let us know the reasons so as to contribute to the meaningful discussion here.

(If instead you missed out on getting in at the sub 4c mark, running up the gains during the recent M&A action , paying your share of CGT and now seeking a re-entry for the next leg up - why don’t you tell us that is the case?)