* Do I have a factual basis for reporting this information, or...

* Do I have a factual basis for reporting this information, or is it an interpretation? Should know geology is an inexact science right, you claim to be one, so how much reporting doesn't involve some interpretation ... previous mining knowledge, 3-4 substantial and detailed reports, a university thesis, 12 months drilling this sucker... I'd say more than enough info.

* Have I confirmed the accuracy of this information or am I relying on unverified historical information? What is it with your historical data obsession? Multiple reports, hundred historical holes, 9 development level maps, mined out stope plans, huge number of cross-sections, logs etc, etc all help 'inform' interpretation of recent drilling... unverified, never happened, but we reported an old Resource of 4.7Mt . Valuable but hardly required or relied relied upon for the current reporting problems.

* Is the reporting of historical information I have not verified to my satisfaction potentially more misleading than not reporting it? WFT... that's easy, all omitted data I've complained about helps support upside assumptions (eg omitting hole DDH20), where all the historical data reported helps support upside assumptions (eg permanently including many hugely down-dip underground holes on long section) Hole DDH20 is a classic, has a known collar location, azimuth, hole length, but apparently an "uncertain" dip and assay "Results uncertain at this time"... despite being clearly referneced in the text (can't imagine it wasn't logged etc).

So hHole DDH20 was left out of the long-section, even though it was next to hole B-4, down-dip of holes 18, 5, 19 and 10, all of which would have constrained the ore-horizon and range of possible depth intersection to maybe +/- 25m vertical on a fixed LS northing. Since you asked me, seems it's more misleading to leave this hole out and pasted "Undrilled ... High Grade Mineralisation To The South" into the gap left, than plot the hole in the centre of a +/-25m vertical range on the Acquisition release... but maybe I'm biased.


* Would reporting this information inform the market of the facts, or would this information muddy the waters by allowing the perception in the market that the information I have personally verified are less reliable than the holes I have not personally verified? (and in this case, exchange 'drilled' for 'verified').. I haven;t even talk about historical drilling for months... it's irrelevant to the issues of accurately plotting results, providing x-sections, drill trace plans, true-width estimations for important results, lease boundaries etc.

High gold grade silicate interval... clearly misleading in relation to reporting a sulphide hosted orebody etc (been through this before), but the critical JORC phrase I outlined was "reporting both high and low grades... to avoid misleading". Given the previous highest gold assay reported was 1.5g/t in a historically 0.3g/t Au orebody, I'm prepared to bet that 6.3m interval @ 16g/t was carried by one non-credible, un-cut assay across the 6.3m interval (known in the industry as 'grade smearing'). If thee was a singular high grade sample carrying that interval, especially in the historical context of gold endowment at Antler, I would say this was clearly misleading. Happy as always for the company to provide individual assays to justify why a gold only silicate interval was used to extend a sulphide hosted orebody by 25% in width...

then using your own back-of-the-envelope kludges to claim you can calculate true thicknesses at ~60%. I mean, really, your sails are empty and you're trying to blow your yacht forward with huffing and puffing.... LOL, really shits you that I managed to work out valid corrections to misleading long-section holes plots doesn;t it. You were one of the crew crowing that "there isn;t enough information for you to triangulate or work out where the holes should be plotted, haha" ... which in itself is cringeworthy, but for hypocrisy is breath-taking. Right there is the crux of the problem... company holding back sufficient data for an investor to reasonably work out what it means. I did but I'm not your average bear (no pun intended), I can't see how you continue to defend no cross-sections, drill traces etc which will clear most of this up at a glance

Has NWC and its geology team confirmed the historical reports of anthophyllite and fibrous silicates? I don't know. Is it meaningful? Probably not. Is it material?... All previous reports made special mention of the large amount of 'fibrous-silicates' intimately associated with massive sulphide mineralisation at Antler... are you seriously suggesting they made it up? By all means inspect and, unless management feel they are qualified to judge there is no risk, then submit multiple samples of Actinolite, Tremolite and Anthophyllite fibrous-silicates for testing. If they choose not to test this risk at this stage fine (because core is cut under running water etc), but the association between fibrous-silicates of these 3 minerals and asbestos is beyond doubt.

The Western Australian Mines Dept has a guideline titled; Management offibrous minerals inWestern Australianmining operations... because not all fibrous-silicates are asbestos, but 'fibrous-silicates' is the identifiable red-flag that needs to be investigated (ie potential deleterious substance). The duty of care for employers in WA anyway, "requires usingappropriate strategies to recognise, evaluate and control suchhazards". I don;t see that deciding to put off evaluating the potential deleterious substance recognised absolves the company from reporting the risk to investors so they can make their own mind up on the risk and if they want to take the same laid-back risk approach as management? Another subjective call that requires ASX judgement maybe?

The essence of our disagreement over reporting can be summarised as ... I think there's been more than enough data for ages to plot accurate LS, present cross-sections and drill traces, estimate true-widths for important holes so investors are not misled etc.... you do not. I could wireframe up recent drilling, spit out x-sections, longsections and drill trace plans in a day. Do you think these 600m holes aiming for a 25m2 target are being planned on the back of an envelope, or the geo has been building the wireframe inside exploration software with surveyed holes one-by-one since early last year?? 12 months drilling, spent ~$7M, yet haven't found time to wireframe the orebody and see what's going on, what the true-thickness is like, where the next holes are being aimed for....seriously?

The essence of our disagreement over reporting won;t be resolved on this thread obviously, but it would be answered in my favour at any pub inside the first pint imo... Feels like ground hog day here sometimes, I'm off to the pub and ask someone thinking straighter.