Ann: Preliminary Final Report, page-85

"And i must agree - people will say what they feel they need to say, to pump a stock and make a gain at others expense."

Chris consider this...

I thought talking about a stock we are invested in, looking at their products, and not using spruiking language, specifically, was called stock discussion. Using terminology like, "you must buy", "this stock is great", "the stock is going up, or about to go up", the charts say it is heading up, and showing a 'buy' in the sentiment, was more the definition you are referring to.

Show me where the 2 or 3 people (well, sometimes Zess gets a bit excited) who try and post some balance here are using those pumping terms. Show me where I am saying such things for CGB in here. My sentiment is 'Hold' because that is what I am doing. My signature says people SHOULDN'T take my advice as investment support. How much clearer do posters need to be unless there are agendas at play, perhaps?

My sentiment doesn't show "None", though, as they are selling products, and I hope to see CannTab delivered. As it is, let me make it clear, I see nothing at this point with CGB's announcements that would make me tell anybody to rush out and buy this stock. But I do see healthy fwd funds, where if the right deal is secured, "could help/might help" the company and its shareholders sometime in the future. If that changes, as it did for me in 2021, I will move, sell my holdings, and tell the forum, as I did in 2021. I did not gain from that sale at other's expenses, either.

Could we also perhaps apply the same critique and commentary to posts that are focused on dumping sentiment critiques where on occasion, unsubstantiated and false facts have been used to keep the contrarian viewpoint alive? Could that type of commentary also be considered as creating a negative confirmation bias with a 'sell' sentiment, I wonder? Like hidden or missing interest, double payments to Directors, photos of hemp fields and no harvest, whole tonnage seed crops burned by the drought. I could go on. There have been more misdirective or unsubstantiated posts in here than what I see on the majority of ASX stocks. Why is that? HC history of post removals has reasons indicated.

That also needs to be fairly considered, doesn't it?

My last email to the company expressed my concern about current wages that I believe should reflect outcomes and come back down to 2017 levels, as the Transformation deals failed. I also strongly expressed the need for the company to have the right people in the top jobs. I would have said that was working in favour of what shareholders want to say to a company.