Ann: Preliminary Final Report, page-86

"There have been more misdirective or unsubstantiated posts in here than what I see on the majority of ASX stocks."

You claim some posters make unsubstantiated claims - how would you substantiate the claim noted above? Have you made a quantitative comparison between the alleged unsubstantiated posts made on the CGB thread against the "majority of ASX stocks"? Followed by a hearty guffaw.

Oh and I assume you intended 'misleading' and not "misdirective"?

Further, the claims about unsubstantiated posts are rarely highlighted or corrected at the relevant time. Why is that?

Every time an inconvenient question is posed it is often met with obfuscation and churlish taunts about poster 'motivation' and being a 'non-holder' blah, blah, blah. A common refrain seems to be that there might be some conspiracy at play. I have been asked, on more than one occasion, whether I am associated with another company. Followed by a hearty guffaw.

CGB holders have no proprietary interests whatsoever over the HC CGB thread. Any member is entitled to post - holder or otherwise. If posters do not like contrarian views and only want to read views that they find appealing - open a private forum somewhere - simple. Is there an expectation that posters should post agreeable contrarian views? Followed by a hearty guffaw.

"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?"

Simple solution - respond with facts that disprove contrarian opinions. As for "... dumping sentiment critiques" I have no idea what that means.

"... false facts" - what is a false fact? Surely, a fact is either a fact or it is not. If a fact is false it is no longer a fact but a fiction.