feed back to l and h, page-4

Wizard8,

I have said a long time ago that i will critique every announcement and base my findings on facts.
I do this due to ill-reporting of the past and that the company has sent many people to the dogs via poor to zero disclosure on certain topics and vagueness to boot.
If you can argue that they aren't vague, that they haven't historically disclosed things poorly and if you can argue tha they have been upfront with all matters, then i welcome any discussion on the matter.

As i said, we only review the facts the company creates.
And it is essential to review and critique announcements that this company makes due to one fact only - that the same scoundrels that ran it and created the announcements in it's horrid days are indeed the same people that run it and make announcements now (even though they tried to trick investors into thinking that Jeff Clarke was out of the picture, which it appears he is not).
So until the wordsmiths from hell are sacked, or unless they make a wrong move and go to jail for it, we will be forever necessary to keep a good eye on them just in case more investors get ripped off by their idea of what reporting actually is.

For example, In my opinoin, they could not have ever been unaware about the condition of the wells up to 1 year before they reported their poor conditions in full and yet from what i understand, the rules state that they must announce things as soon as practicable.
I am entitled to my opinion and IMO this may be why the various Directors all fled en mass...ie, if they figured that someone was going to get into trouble the moment investors put their heads together and took the company to court - which can still happen and may well be (the company does not report on the commencement of any proceedings, take the USA cases that are instituted as we speak as a good example).
Now all that is only my amateur open-minded opinion about what may or may not have happened and how i feel about it and it is yet to be shown as to whether or not my opinion will become a facts - so until it isn't proven otherwise i will stick to my guns and report it as i see it, via my own experience and the companies history.
We all interpret thigns differently and as i asked, if you you can rationalise that the facts deserve a better review, then please speak up, as i am known to not be one eyed and have at times changed my outlook (normally to be disappointed shortly thereafter and backflip into negative mindedness again).

No one is impressed with this company and i have discusse them with quite a number of investors, including it very largest investor at the time, so i know my truthiness hold integrity.
And as I seem to be one of the few who don't use one-liners and actually discuss the matters in full, i am also any easy target for criticism - but my skin is as thick as a rhino's - so be it.
I have nothing to lose in discussing the way i see it as MAE took the whole lot from me via its sub-standard writing skills and then gave their Directors all my shares for next to nothing for simply doing a half-baked job with a pen and piece of paper.

Things are far from beginning for the company, but not in the way that you might see it.

Cheers