"I see it for what it is" That is a definitive statement....

"I see it for what it is" That is a definitive statement. Perhaps you meant to say "In my opinion, I believe that this has happened"

Careful? Of what? I insinuated nothing. I simply asked you to clarify why you would make the above statement. You can see the optics of it surely? "I have spoken to Shannon" and "I see it for what it is". Fair enough to ask the question I reckon.

Yes the announcements were made to appease the ASX, who were only enforcing the rules of the corporations act and listing requirements.

Do you feel the ASX has been unfair in asking PF1 to adhere to the same rules as everyone else? Or you just flippant to the whole situation because your a holder and can see no wrong?

"The change of auditor was just to put daylight between new and old" Is this in your opinion or was this told to you by management? You can see why I ask right? Because the auditor resigned.....not sacked, or replaced. So your saying the auditor thought they should resign because they had ties to WFE or the former management? But I thought all auditors were supposed to be independent? Are you implying something? Am I? Yikes! The confusion.

Ohh, on that subject, "daylight between new and old" yet you are ok with suggesting PF1 didn't really have to supply the JORC again because WFE released it previously a few year back...contradictory much?

"Chip"? The hot kind or the in a bag kind? I like both, just saying.