Hi Kel,Thanks for your reply.I think there a few comments you...

Hi Kel,

Thanks for your reply.

I think there a few comments you should withdraw. I don’t think you are being deliberately deceitful. Let’s just call it an effect of enthusiasm.

My explanation is as follows;

Each response you made seems to open with a tangent claim and then close with a conclusion that supports your preferred outcome. Trouble is each conclusion you reach is a non sequitur. Even you should notice that about your method of reasoning. It’s a clever language pattern but it is no way to hold reasonable discussion with other investors on a public stock forum.

The points you have tried to press into service are as follows;

Company feedback tells you this team is in full flow and implies my observation is misguided. Ok. Let’s explore your claim. Are you arguing that you have access to company feedback that is different to public announcements? Setting that aside, any chance you are being told what you want to hear? You are better than that. The evidence available is that this team is not in full flow. There is a strong argument that face faces are needed to build some momentum.

The Sustainability Report confirms this team is in full flow. A lovely document for sure, but it is a hygiene factor, not a success factor. It is required as part of the whole story but is no way the core purpose of the Board at this phase of the company lifecycle. In the slack time this Board has needed to produce something to justify its existence. Especially Cynthia who is standing for re-election.

Gary as inventor and Gary as chair are two different things. No need for surprise. It is an important governance step to separate inventors from corporate roles. The history of grabby inventors who destroy commercial value is long and sordid. Often it is the best overall choice even if it is a difficult conversation…but take heart, many others seem to have managed it and LPD can too.

Your comments regarding independence of Board directors are self-contradictory. It would be embarrassing for me to step you through it but I suggest you withdraw you claims, especially regarding Mark Rodda. It would be important for everyone reading to know how governance standards define the tests for independence of Board directors… and then contrast those public standards with your claims.

This management and Board stand to gain from success rather than take a wage. Are you seriously arguing that? Read the room Kel. Most here have been pointing out the disconnect between performance and reward. In fact it was the major apology extracted from this Board following last years AGM disgrace. Please don’t reach for crazy claims to justify your personal hopes and dreams.

I still like you but it seemed important to me to catch a few of these fantastical claims and wrestle them back toward generally accepted notions of accountability, independence and common sense.

We are investors, not a cheer squad for the local sports team.

My comments here have been strident so I am happy to be taken to task on any of the above.

Go the slow ‘pus

AM47