From 2ic;"Morning... you do us both a disservice. My opinion on...

From 2ic;
"Morning... you do us both a disservice. My opinion on the accuracy of ASX communications or prospectivity of DRE projects may be contradictory and negative compared to Deans published opinion, but that doesn;t mean I know any more about the geology/projects than Dean does. Quite the contrary I'm sure, obviously Dean and his geo's are far more knowledgeable about the geology/projects than I ever will be."
Emphasis mine.

And yet he has been 100% right about everything! Really? Fantastic self appointed score! Wow, what an admission that I have called out in the past several times, so thanks for the confession. Far too early to call in many instances, even if the early results or commonly accepted models and perceptions appear to support his arguments. E.g. Mangaroon gold and Mangaroon in general. As I have said before his negativity is high probability in exploration; hence, relatively safe.

"I could be wrong, too negative, a new discovery could rocket the stock... I could be right?" The odds are that the expertly pegged ground (PChapman and co.), intention to invest over 85% of raised capital into the ground, the track record of the exploration team, the range of commodities and vast area under examination - all point to a higher than normal chance of just that folks. That is why most of us are here.

2ic, that is actually a balanced post that was absent insults and innuendo. Wow, you can do it ...when the light is shone upon you.

2ic makes a valid point about explorers. Best foot forward and glass half full. But that is just one side of the business as they have to get there in the end with a viable discovery to be credible.

Explorers have to be optimistic and put their best foot forward in reporting and presentations. Yes, investors have to be aware of that but balanced at the same time. They have to sell their story because they depend on this for fresh capital to further their projects and chances for the big breakthrough they desire. That does not mean comparisons of analogues and similarities are not valid. They have to work to some sort of substantiated model as part of the exploration exercise. I liken it to a business plan of sorts. That does not mean they are crooks; unless they seed the drill holes or blatantly lie. Omission of some data can be on the basis that it was irrelevant, see the next paragraph for my reason to believe that.

I have seen many exploration successes come in areas that have had previous work over the area. Near misses are common (e.g. Bombora). Small discoveries can turn into large ones at times with more work. Look at KOTH and the RED experience; a misunderstood model and deposit that turned into a 4Moz+ Au company maker after decades of "opinion based error" about the project. That stifled discovery which is my main point to all this. Onward and upward DRE! And thanks for the balance 2ic, well done.

DYOR Country Boy, Mills and Boon fiction writer, naive company spin artist (some of the 2ic tags assigned to me) - nah, I try to be balanced but suffer at times from confirmation bias and a positive attitude. That can backfire at times so stick to cash management risk mitigation. I have been too rough on poor old 2ic at times too so I take responsibility for that.