So what I'm hearing is that you would have preferred BL to give...

So what I'm hearing is that you would have preferred BL to give 'professional PR' responses even if it meant they weren't truthful?

To your first point: If you read Loui's post again, BL was not the one who made those comments about KP, that was Loui's own interpretation of the conversation. He may have come to that interpretation from a number of things BL said e.g. BL may have hinted at the scale of future dealings with much larger companies. I feel like you are ascribing the negative commentary to BL in this case.

To your second point: How do you see what BL said as a deflection, he acknowledged there were errors and gave what I would consider a plausible reason as to an increased workload. Saying that the regulatory requirements has brought with it a substantial workload is a shot at the ASX? and again, you would prefer him to give a lie as his response?

The bit about the 20 lawyers, in my interpretation of what was provided was that he was using it as a measuring stick to illustrate the workload that comes a long with the aforementioned regulatory requirements. The other inferences are a few logical leaps away imo. Straight from the horses mouth "Keith essentially had to hire 20 lawyers, to control the governance and reporting to the marktes/SEC."

To your third point: There was no mention of 'Old guard' in the post whatsoever, from what Loui conveyed BL didn't take any direct shots at PC. The issue Loui raised was errors in comms, BL said their remedy for the issue was a change in guard. Yes, that indirectly implies the person before was causing the issues, but who else was responsible? Didn't say who or make any direct reference however. So my view is that he purposefully danced around the issue you are pointing out.

How do you provide an adequate response to that question without ever so slightly and indirectly referencing the position responsible for those errors?

To play devils advocate again with this CR, the reasoning and timing for this CR as more unfolds is looking increasingly like it was done to help the institutional shorts out, not out of a sense of urgency or concern. So, the answer that BL gave may have actually been the 'PR' alternative which you were looking for.

"the way in which the comments have been translated back to the social media which are then subject to various levels of interpretation and scrutiny. And with some of the underpinning themes being somewhat negative and unprofessional."

I've read most peoples interpretations of the meeting and I don't think anyone has speculated to the extent you have in their interpretation or with as many allusions to negativity/unprofessionalism. Don't get me wrong here, I am not a big fan of the way management has operated in the past year but I feel like you've come at this with a strong bias and gone the extra mile to show it, don't really understand it tbh.

And re your last comment mate, I and many others are guilty of slamming PLL as the potential reason for delays in carbonate just prior to this meeting. Regardless of even that though, there's a blow-in every other week banging on about the damn PLL OT and how bad it is for SYA, I really don't think this meeting was the catalyst for that.