because I would as good as name a broker - and the inference...

because I would as good as name a broker - and the inference would be obvious.

That would put me at risk of defamation.

I have given enough here for anyone now to work out what happened - I see no reason to put myself at risk. I hope that is understandable.

I have been in touch with someone who is far better resourced than me this morning and I have been informed that my analysis comes to the same conclusion as theirs.

The thing is - it is past - water gone under the bridge ---------- I suffered no loss - monetarily - because I never sold a single share in the period - sure, it was a pain in the butt to see the price drop from 117 to where it is now - and, it is now nice to know pretty much precisely what happened and who did it - and how (still don't know exactly why - but, I will stick with my theory on a sicko from a month or so back) .

To me - what is now important - as it always is -- is - where do we go from here?

IMO - if we have institutional interest from here on for a while - then, I believe that their demand will overpower any more funny bugger business from the party who caused all the trouble since 117. They may try some things - but, they don't have enough ammo left IMO - to do a great deal of harm - if demand is solid - they will just go through more ammo.
Of course - they could borrow and short ------------- but, at some stage they have to cover - so, that worries me not (thank god for being a holding sort of person).

There is of course, the potential of another attack from other sources - but, to get the same mix of conditions - I think the chances are slim. There is of course - the possibility of someone else shorting - which, I am sure will happen - and, they may well try the same HC antics as well - but, it could well be on a small scale - and, eventually - they have to cover as well.

So - there is my answer ----- I hope that all makes sense.

have a great sunday

Pinto