Ann: Mining Lease Application lodged for Lei Lithium Deposit, page-142

Your public assertions that I'm misleading others are not only unfounded but also potentially damaging to my reputation and the trust people place in my work. I assure you that I approach my work with integrity, diligence, and a commitment to accuracy.I've previously suggested that you take some time for self-reflection on your approach, considering potential attribution and confirmation biases. These psychological tendencies can sometimes lead us to interpret situations in ways that confirm our preexisting beliefs, potentially overlooking alternative explanations or perspectives. I'm reaching out again in the hope that we can find a more constructive way to engage with each other's ideas.Perhaps we could arrange a civil, face-to-face discussion about your concerns? This would allow us to better understand each other's viewpoints and potentially find common ground. It's possible that what you perceive as misleading information might be a result of misunderstanding or different interpretations of data or methodologies.In the spirit of mutual respect and constructive dialogue, I kindly ask that you refrain from making negative comments about my work in public spaces. If you have concerns, I'm open to discussing them directly or in an appropriate forum where we can engage in a balanced, evidence-based debate.

This was the message for you few days ago:

Common signs of contradictory arguments in his discussions include:1. Inconsistent premises: he presents conflicting foundational ideas within the same argument.2. Shifting goalposts: he changes his criteria for accepting evidence as the discussion progresses.3. Cherry-picking data: he selectively uses information that supports his views while ignoring contradictory evidence.4. Emotional reasoning: Arguments based on feelings rather than facts, leading to logical inconsistencies.5. False dichotomies: Presenting complex issues as having only two opposing sides, ignoring nuanced perspectives.6. Confirmation bias: Kasi interprets new information in a way that confirms his preexisting beliefs, even if it's logically inconsistent. 7. Circular reasoning: Arguments that assume the conclusion in his premises.8. Ad hominem attacks: Criticizing the person rather than addressing their actual points, often indicating a weak argument.9. Overgeneralisation: Making broad claims based on limited examples, leading to contradictory statements when counterexamples are presented.10. Misuse of statistics: Incorrectly interpreting or applying data to support contradictory statements.Your public assertions that I'm misleading others are not only unfounded but also potentially damaging. I assure you that I approach my work with integrity, diligence, and a commitment to accuracy.I've previously suggested that you take some time for self-reflection on your approach, considering potential attribution and confirmation biases. These psychological tendencies can sometimes lead us to interpret situations in ways that confirm our preexisting beliefs, potentially overlooking alternative explanations or perspectives. I'm reaching out again in the hope that we can find a more constructive way to engage with each other's ideas.Perhaps we could arrange a civil, face-to-face discussion about your concerns? This would allow us to better understand each other's viewpoints and potentially find common ground. It's possible that what you perceive as misleading information might be a result of misunderstanding or different interpretations of data or methodologies.In the spirit of mutual respect and constructive dialogue, I kindly ask that you refrain from making negative comments about my work in public spaces. If you have concerns, I'm open to discussing them directly or in an appropriate forum where we can engage in a balanced, evidence-based debate.