Well, Darren, I have a business also but it happens to afford me
some time (not all day everyday as you assume) to sit in front of the computer. Isn't it funny how you replied to a post of mine in which I was dismissing the "pie in the sky conjecture" being made by the uprampers but state that is me who is coming up with "pie-in-the-sky conjecture". Love the double standards!
You've made it quite clear that you know who I am, so I'm sure you would therefore know that I have few shares left in my holding (as I have openly stated on this forum). The fact is that all SH should be treated equally (regardless of their holding size) and they are not.
Concerns are not being addressed by the company or the board. SH have complained about not receiving replies to emails and no one answering the phone when they phone the office. Sure, its not your job to address my concerns but surely it makes sense for you or the company to address those concerns that culminate in undesirable market perception?
As far as suggesting that I
"put more effort into your research and a better understanding of the obligations of directors and what they can and cant disclose to the market place / shareholders you might have a better understanding of how the games played and what can be disclosed"
Well, perhaps I should start my learning here and now.
Can you point me to the ASX Announcement in which LNY discloses that it carried out a very public tender for the mining contract and MAAS happened to be the cheapest? How come you know this but we don't? And, why doesn't the market still not know the cost of mining? Like many SH, I have sold due to the lack of transparency. Whether the company is required to disclose the costs or not, why are some SH, such as yourself, privy to such information when the rest are not?
Same applies to the processing costs. What are they? Why is the market being kept in the dark about the cost being charged by Lorena to process the gold from our mine? All that the market has been told is that it it's a flat rate! Do you think that is good enough, Darren? And, is that info you're privy to as well?
As for your allegation of defamation. I made no comments in my post other than the following sentence:
"The following golden nuggets from a bit of "Google Mining" is for you and others to process (pardon the pun). The Financial Review article sets the scene and the findings re our friend or foe is on page 114 and 115 of the ICAC report".... and posted two screenshots of what the google searches listed. I didn't even cast an aspersion or post a conclusion.
"Its a shame for you that you never researched the fact that the NSWDPP never charged me and actually publicly cleared me of any wrong doing..." The fact is what come up is what come up on the google search and what you state is the fact didn't even show on the search. Its a shame that my post was reported and subsequently modded as "Off Topic". In fact, that is interesting in itself. The post wasn't even deemed to be "Defamatory".
"but hey maybe you did [research the fact the NSWDPP never charged me] and it wasn't the shock and awe you wanted." That statement, my dear Darren, could be perceived as defamatory! It is an assumption you are making upon which you are drawing a false conclusion. I can assure you that I wouldn't have posted at all had I known you had been cleared of the charges. I am not out to defame anyone... merely searching for the truth. That information did not come to my attention at the time... and still doesn't appear in any google searches.
"You have gone out of your way to bag anyone on here that doesn't have the same bitter twisted view of SB and PW" Really? Perhaps you need substantiate with examples of me bagging others and examples of my supposed bitter twisted view of SB and PW... because they sure are exaggerations!
"Be honest with yourself Michelle your bitter because you made a bad investment in Bass your blaming SB and PW" I'm not bitter at all... I got over that quite some time ago. I'm disappointed that LNY is not living up to my expectations, though. And, I happen to have become highly suspicious and sceptical as to why the company is run the way it is... thats all (just like a lot of other SH). Hey, if you read through all my posts, you will come across many conciliatory comments about SB and PW, and I don't believe I have ever made any attacks of a personal nature against either of them.
"If your not happy with the company and the management invest elsewhere otherwise front the AGM with your concerns if you believe them to be true." You have stated that I am not anonymous and so you would therefore know I do not live in Qld but in WA so would be unable to attend the AGM. As for the alternative ultimatem... that's for me to decide, not you. Besides, holders and non-holders are allowed to voice their concerns and express their opinions on this forum. You may be the brother of Stephen Bizzell and the Top 5 SH but that doesn't give you the right to give posters on this forum ultimatems, threaten me, make defamatory remarks or use my real name on this forum. It is you who needs to read the posting guidelines re doxxing. FYI
@dugsab
(20min delay)