"but at least I show data and describe results as they really...

"but at least I show data and describe results as they really are, as i really see them. Our young friend Thomas has a couple of years' experience as CEO under his belt, doesn't mean he doesn;t still have a lot to learn from the experience of Middlemass's stable..."
According to his LinkedIn bio, Thomas has been a geo for 12 years - no, not a 30 year veteran, but also not a novice.
Life has taught me that time doing a job is not ncessarily indicative of competence in that job.

I only "know" Thomas through his interviews.
He doesn't strike me as an arrogant, know-it-all & I'm sure he'd agree with you that he has "a lot to learn from the experience of Middlemass's stable..."

So what?
I'm also sure that for IM to let him take control of his shell, Ian would've done some very serious DD on Thomas & his capabilities.
If TL passed muster for IM, he passes muster for me.

So you insinuate, as you have since the get-go, that TL is either a rube or a naive criminal, & he is ably supported by IM & his accomplices at the Apollo Group as it "Looks like somebody has pulled Thomas aside and told him "No,no boy, that's not how you do it... that won;t do at all". Open up photoshop, fatten them Reefs and add hanging wall low-grade the basal reef intercepts, people going to think it's too skinny!"

Of course, it wouldn't occur to you that by providing a close up of the reef as was used in the 20/6 report that it would be more user-friendly in understanding the structures.
I compare the second diagram to the first & find nothing sinister; I simply see a company guilty of utilising useful diagrams.
Nothing criminal about that.
I also have no doubt TL would have valid responses to your other queries - yet you'd never show yourself at the time of wanting to take him to task.

Almost every time I read one of your posts, the following word goes through my mind - "defamation".
So I just did a quick Google & stumbled upon this: Defamation law in Australia: A quick guide
The website contains the following content:
"To succeed in an action in defamation, the plaintiff needs to prove that the material published by the defendant contained one or more defamatory “imputations”. Imputation is a negative claim about a person or their behaviour – for example if Jane Smith writes a social media post saying that “Joe Bloggs is a lousy plumber and a crook”, then Joe Bloggs might allege that the post contained imputations that he is incompetent and dishonest if those allegations are untrue.

"Insinuate, imputate - same, same?

I'm no lawyer & I'm not here to scare you.
Other than being a shareholder, I have absolutely nothing to do with this company; so I'm not trying to scare you or threaten you as I'm in no position to do so.
However, in my layman's reading of your posts, you are really pushing the envelope.
Now I'm sure you'd love to die on your hill etc., but if I were you I'd really hope TL & the boys at Apollo Group don't read the TM1 forum on HC.