"Your initial post starts with what appears to be a rhetorical question. "I am just curious as to why everyone is trying to make a possible link to mining when that would involve another major Transformation of activities, wouldn't it?"
I was addressing and asking the question, in #: 65356709 and #: 65352107 based on the volume of posts on the mining topic only, at the time, and why mining was all the talk when this was a Cannabis company. I am aware of sector classifications and how announcements work with the ASX from past experience. I also addressed this in a later post, through a question, as to why mining would not have been mentioned in the past 6 suspension announcements. I hope that clarifies.
"After which you attempt to impugn the credibility of the poster, by adding the following remarks "completely new member" "who is a non-holder" "seems to know about the activities of the business"."
I have been reading posts on Hot Copper since about 2009/2010, I believe. I registered finally in 2015. I have observed the games of many Day Traders or people who have a beef with company post sometimes, incessantly on forums, for years on end, because they lost money or don't like a Director, or ex-employees or friends of ex-employees. (have been told examples of all of these in outside discussions )
I have no real issue with the majority of non-holders posting, but as I have discussed this with friends who are also shareholders outside of this forum, I was curious, again based on the volume of posts from this new member for a single stock interest, why the poster, who told me he was just an ordinary Joe, "seemed" to know a lot about the inner workings of the company,#: 65216011 #: 65250882 even to address Marion personally in a post#: 65294943. That is why I asked him if he was the Frank I knew, #: 65206605 even before he posted that comment. Again I feel, a logical question to ask, as these questions are often asked by shareholders to non-holders who post on other forums on HotCopper. He could be an ordinary Joe, but as this is a forum, where people like to search back through posts, no more to be said there, Chris.
I also post comments and questions, which get people to research.
"The only reason to include those remarks, as you would know from your marketing history, are to present the narrative that the poster, and thus the information posted, is not credible."
No! But understand what you are trying to draw out of my statement. I provided my reasons above. For a data miner, they were logical conclusions to draw. I can understand how some will interpret it that way.
As a side note:
I cannot figure out for the life of me though, when posters infer in posts that they place you on 'Ignore' "first btw" then try and, from observation, continue to snipe at you 'indirectly' or 'through inference' in other post replies to CGB posters, in what seems to be an attempt or hope to draw you out for a word debate. That is probably why I don't bother to answer them. If you put someone on Ignore, then state your reasons as to why then just Ignore them. That is what Ignore is for. I don't respect those who hide comments from the person they place on Ignore and keep shooting at them from the shadows. But the platform allows this, so it is what it is!
" The American company was incorporated 11 months ago, 21st of January 2022, less than a year.
Grammatical structure notwithstanding, it doesnt change the tone and content of your remark.
The only logical reason for it, is to cast the recent posts in a negative light, by suggesting all this information is known to..."
No, Chris! The reasons are explained above. There is no Neil narrative as there is no Chris narrative.
Observation: I do see, what you are potentially accusing me of, you also have done the same thing here with me, trying to draw negative attention to my comments or person, even stating about me being omnipotent as a flaming remark. Respectfully isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, unless you feel you want to respect me by withdrawing that comment? I don't, as a rule, try and attack the poster unless I have been provoked incessantly by a group of posters.
"Finally, again bringing out the Victim card." "I see your volume of posts and do not believe this to be true. Nothing has stopped you from posting here, as frequently as your heart desires."
Again, play the ball not the man, Chris. My volume of posts actually are far less than yours recently, my friend. 50 posts to my 30 posts since 25/11. (Providing data only - not baiting you)
"Nothing has stopped you from posting here...
I post when I feel it is necessary and because it draws out people who are angry. (most of them are on ignore now) But, to address that comment, if you were harassed like I have been harassed, well sit in my shoes. But it is what it is, and I am a very vocal advocate for people with disabilities, not a victim but proud of what I have achieved. Australia just has some of the worse trolls in the world for knocking people out of the game who try hard. (not referring to your comments - historical evidence based on the 'Tall Poppy Syndrome")
" However, lately your posts seem to berate others for providing information, or contain nothing of value but are designed to hide any narrative you dislike"
Again, I am providing the opposite narrative, which is allowed but I do try and add some balance by drawing attention to the company's failures, as well. So...please try not to over-read things. But happy to address your concerns. Let's stop the personal attacks and you will get better more detailed responses from me.
"Food for thought for every shareholder (and even non-holders, i don't discriminate!),"
Then please play the ball, if this is important to you.
Anyway, Chris, as we are all saying. Let's all try and have a good Christmas with our families and see in the New Year hopefully with CGB relisted and everyone safe.
