gus simspon in indonesia, page-33

I really don't want to wear out my keyboard in a running argument with you Taz so hopefully I can keep this brief and leave it at that.

I’m guessing we will see who is right or wrong on this issue after the fact. Let’s see if we see any notice?

I'm not saying it was or wasn't a substantial holder, simply arguing against your assertion that it can't be because they didn't release a change of interest notice within hours of the trade. If a week goes by and no notice then I'll agree that it was a holder with less than 5%. For the record I do not believe it was a director. For a director to sell 18m on market in the current circumstances would be suicide for the company.

I find it very difficult to understand why you have replaced Mr. Mochamad Thamrin with Gus

Simple mistake. However, whilst I regard Thamrin highly I still wouldn't put him in the Messiah category. "Deals we could never even comprehend" indeed.

It would’ve been better to comment as your “opinion, than working on “factual basis”, very hypocritical lol But how bout I provide you with a link which is based on factual info:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-16/insider-trading-cases-surge-says-asic/4014338
within article states: ”In a sign of a rise in illegal trading, ASIC says it is receiving around 200 alerts a day in relation to suspicious trading activity regarding the use of privileged information unavailable to the general market.”

Nice cherry pick there. 200 alerts sounds a lot.

"In the three years to December last year, ASIC won 11 convictions for insider trading"

That's less than 4/year.

"In the prior decade to 2008, ASIC won 10 insider trading cases and lost five."

That 1/year. Overall average of 2.5 prosecutions and 1.6 convictions per year. My comment was "Lucky to get a couple a year". And you use this as the basis to to shoot down my argument and call me hypocritical. You've done nothing to address the fact that you used so called threat of prosecution as the basis for your hypothetical when it is clearly tenuous. I admit I didn't look up the number but I knew the general range it would be in as I've had a lot of face time with ASIC staff in the past. This was a particular issue that was discussed a lot.

Wrong. In the absence of conclusive evidence (i.e. witness statement, phone or email records) that they had received inside info the court is obliged to accept that explanation. Our justice system does not require the accused to prove their innocence.”

REPLY: As per my reply above, please refer to the article provided which obtains factual information, rather than your opinions which are non-factual and your opinion only. I could go into a lot more detail, but I’m guessing most HC members would agree. No further reply required!

Reread the entire article and didn't see anything to suggest someone could be convicted without evidence if they fail to provide a 'plausible explanation'. Your entire reply says nothing of substance whatsoever. You've simply asserted that my opinions are non-factual, hint that you could win the argument if you wanted to but that everyone knows your right so no need to bother. A politician would be proud.

The scenario's are hardly comparable. ... [trimmed]”

REPLY: Your comment is laughable. I provided factual information on Gus’s most recent success in raising funds with PEN. How can you say “The scenario's are hardly comparable”.

Laughable you say? The only common factor is Gus himself. In mercy's name how can seriously suggest that the Lance project, a uranium project with years of constant drilling, proven resources, that has operated as a pilot plant before, has a completed DFS, a decision to mine announced and permitting in advanced stages is in anyway comparable to virgin ground prospective for O&G?

Please prove with a factual reply that I have ever indicated in any of my comments/opinions on record that I expect a CR to be offered at the current SP????

ok I will grant you that one... What you said was:

So if this approach is adopted by QPN, does anyone expect a dilution in the SP? IMO a definite NO

I must have misintepreted it when I first read it because as it's written the comment doesn't make sense, you don't dilute the SP you dilute the holding. But at least you have admitted that raising capital at a discount to current SP is the likely scenario. So please explain then. Is it the case that you think there will be a discounted CR and SP will remain above that level? Or do you believe they can raise capital without diluting existing shareholders, if so please explain how this miracle will occur because I'm fairly sure it would require the rules of mathematics to be rewritten.

I am confident most HC members would agree, Shadders has misinterpreted my previous mentioned comment to his own liking, and adopted his own non-factual assumptions. Please refer to my above reply comment for clarification based on factual information, than Shadders non-factual opinions/assumptions.

Your debating skills leave me in awe. I lost count of the number of times you asserted your confidence that most people on HC would agree with you.

I'm done with this argument. My keyboard is cracking under the strain. If only the SP was indexed to the word count of your posts we'd all be happy campers.