General discussion, page-233

I understand all the criticism and it makes sense when one views things from a particular perspective. However I can't answer for what anyone else chooses to write and it's actually never been any of my business whether you believe that or not.

I first started writing because it made no sense to make comments to the other P about things that came from my own consulting experience and then rely on a second party interpretation. We didn't write on the same threads and in general I tried to write on those things I had some understanding of.

I am not and never have been in the habit of reinforcing others commentary about me - and in fact find that sort of thing awkward - as are references by others to my career. In any event if you find validation of others comments somehow offensive then why not pick on anyone who agrees with someone else.

In general I try to approach things from the perspective of some sort of logic but the problem with logic is that always depends on the base premise. So when the base premise is flawed so the logic will be. We all discovered that the information supplied by the business was wrong so inevitably the conclusions one draws from that are going to be off mark. But maybe you think otherwise.

Maybe you never read and believed anything the business put out. Maybe you relied on hotcopper posts to make decisions rather than reading announcements and newsletters. Maybe you never did a google search on fire retardants. Maybe you never gave a thumbs up to Zandra or Susie or cracker or hottod or ARMCH or taurean. Maybe you wrote opposing views to the latter's charts. Or you disagreed with Plough or anyone of the others who read what was coming out or looked at the charts or ... or.

And btw what happened to jstall? How about a few chips at him because he sure wrote a few positive things. Or any of the others who did the same. Or any of the people who passed on what they were told even if they didn't write on hotcopper. Someone referred to Redbar and he was certainly active when the price went up - but of course was out and inactive when the proverbial occurred. So he's forgotten or forgiven.

So how about you write to Nick Clark and have a go at him. Or Gavin Rezos.

I still struggle to understand why you'd rather be angry with me than the source of the information but maybe that just feels safer for you - and I bet GR and NC are happy to see you direct your anger my way rather than theirs

I'm certainly sorry I decided to respond to recruiter and end up with this rehash of things. But I'm also a little over this need to find someone to blame. I found it interesting that after around two months of silence on my part we were still being referred to.

What is on display as a result of me deciding not to ignore recruiter is the type of behaviour that has been explored regularly in experiments on group behaviour.

So to that extent it is normal. However it is not productive. It serves little purpose other than to allow some individuals to feel vindicated, others to establish an in group and an out group and yet others to project their own stuff onto someone else. That's the ugly side of humans. I don't have much stomach for that in any of the forms it takes. It's unnecessary. It distracts from understanding the real issues and it becomes a way of avoiding personal responsibility- even if that is not acknowledged.

Since posting has simply created a distraction for Alexium I'll butt out again and leave you to do whatever you need to do. Or to speculate as you try to fill in the gaps between the expectations created, the communication coming out, the results and the share price.



P