You may be correct Charlie in some of your thoughts but there is...

You may be correct Charlie in some of your thoughts but there is no need to feel sorry for the shareholders. It is still early days IMO and further drilling may bring reasonable results, as may a reinterpretation and reapplication of the EM data. Perhaps a ground-truthing exercise should have been carried out before they embarked on the intensive drilling.
As for CSRC0026, if you are implying dishonesty on the company's part perhaps you should take it up with the ASX, but if you read the logs mentioned, both refer to mineralization as being Mn, its just the way the logs have been filled out and the detail they give IMO. No-one is implying the presence of 100% Mn in the field.
Reading the entire logs of the 3rd of May it would appear to me that either different Geos worked on the interpretation and there was a changeover during the drilling campaigns, or the geologist concerned changed his/her style, reporting any Mn present just as "Mn" in the "mineralization" column and the rock/type style under the "Rock Type" heading.
This has carried over to the latter announcement and could be seen as creating some inconsistencies in the interpretations of the geology between individual holes.
Sloppy I agree, but unfortunately this failure to convey information to the market in an acceptable presentation has been partly responsible for the languishing of the sp, but doesn't take anything away from the project itself.
We hope for better in the future.