@MrAwesome
Here's what I think is wrong wth this post. It misses out a reasonable amount of the facts. Would be interested in your views and those of @kvz
1. "To be honest, nobody has been debating the science."
Hmm ... well that's no reason as to why they shouldn't! And if a scientific debate is not required or desired why post the article linking Thalidomide and cannabis? The British Medical Journal is a medical science journal. By the way I wouldn't be relying on * either but it wasn't me that posted that article.
From my post yesterday.
"... the British Medical Journal compared the “potential crisis” of pregnant women turning to an untried nausea relief, rather than the standard medical recommendation of ginger and wishful thinking, with the thalidomide disasters of the 1950s and 60s."
This poster claims I am, "... misreading previous * articles" Fair go!
I ask, how is it possible to read the sentence above in any other way?
2. "How do you know there are no results? Why are you investing if there are 'no results'?"
Well that's not too hard. If the financial reports and Annual Report indicate a lack of progress then that is reasonably conclusive. So after years and years of pushing the bauxite story at South Johnston and spending significant sums of cash - where is that project now and far has it progressed? Seriously - "... how do you know there are no results?"
3. "The last annual report shows income (albeit not cash) & significant investment moving forward."
Umm ... why leave out the fact that the last Annual Report also recorded a loss in excess of $5,000,000? Inconvenient fact perhaps? The rest of point 3 is a waste of time.
4. "... and you will never again see a public mining explorer in this country transform into a MM company. That I guarantee you."
That much I agree with - difficult to understand why they did in the first place given their bauxite venture. It is not as if this is an area of expertise within the current BOD. And if you changed direction and are heading into an industry of "huge growth", would you not alter the composition of the BOD to ensure QBL is well positioned to take advantage? Remember QBL is not the same as the BOD. The BOD actually work for QBL on behalf of shareholders and have fiduciary duties that they must perform on behalf of QBL. If they sign a contract for QBL they bind the entity QBL to that contract and not themselves. If, the BOD were kicked to the kerb tomorrow, QBL and shareholder interests would remain the same - they would just be looking for a new BOD.
5. "You cannot measure performance on an income metric standalone. I honestly believe that is ludicrous. Regardless of who the director is, they're not going to work for nothing. That's essentially what you're asking them to do, or so it sounds to me."
Well, in my view, the folly of that statement stands for itself. Even a TAFE small business course teaches otherwise.
"... cannot measure performance on an income metric standalone"
Even if that statement was accurate when, might we be so bold as to enquire, would the, "income metric" become measurable and referable?
6. "... are subscribing for 25 MILLION shares at 3.5c/each.. that's $875,000. I would counter your comment completely on this basis."
If, that is accurate, then that is a good outcome for QBL. However, might we have some evidence of this commitment / purchase by this "collective". If, they are buying as a collective (as this poster claims) and not as individuals, then can we please see how this $875,000 purchase is being structured / undertaken (i.e. it it a trust - under another company etc.?). If it is a "collective" under what name will these 25m shares be entered onto the share register?
Just my thoughts and views!
