In my opinion, this is obfuscation ... nothing more ... nothing...

In my opinion, this is obfuscation ... nothing more ... nothing less. I find that many of the recent posts are becoming so obscure that I find them to be incomprehensible.

Nonetheless, let's examine the paragraph below.

Your post #: 61226461
"It seemed clear to us that many of ASX's issues were due to our own shareholders or hot copper social media keyboard warriors contacting the ASX and raising issues with the ASX that in turn the ASX felt the need to scrutinise our Company more than what would have otherwise been the case.So unfortunately it appears to us that some of our own shareholders were responsible for sabotaging the company during that period and delaying the relisting, which cost all of us dearly." (sic)

In that paragraph (assuming that it is quoted accurately) it is littered with terms such as, "It seemed clear to us" and, "... it appears to us that some of our own shareholders" If, I am reading that correctly, the claim that the "ASX's issues were due to our own shareholders" are based upon how things "seemed" or "appeared" as opposed to how things may have been - is that correct?

And this pearl, "... the ASX felt the need to scrutinise our Company" - I am quite convinced that the ASX does something more than just "feel the need" (very funny). I think that there might be something a little more procedural to an ASX enquiry of any company! Don't you?

I also wonder how many of the questions put to the company were based on the complexities surrounding the GICS reclassification from Materials to Health Care? I could well be mistaken but I seem to recall some discussion around that topic at the time. That topic has nothing whatsoever to do with shareholders. Also, and from memory, there were 15 or 16 versions of the PDS associated with the "company transforming" cap raise that were issued. Why was that do you know?

I think that what you have described in earlier posts (i.e., questions being asked) can hardly be classified as an "investigation" as you claim. (Post #: 61159375).

"And that's where you are wrong Chris. Investigations and enquiries begin from questions asked."

I struggle to reconcile that statement with the facts. Therefore, I would suggest that you are not entitled to tell @Christopher67 that he is wrong. Investigations may (or may not) begin from questions asked. However, I think that your response is an incomplete answer. I also wonder if you know what a Section 19 notice (Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act (2001) is?