Hi Everyone,
I didn't expect any real response to my last post, odd really.
Normal practice it seems on Hot Copper is discredit the poster, and initially that was achieved real well, and then hope any interest goes away. The key is not to respond emotionally, or at all, until all have had their say. Then think about what has been said, and then respond as needed, very unemotionally.
I should add that in my original post, I actually asked a question, which I eventually got answered in later postings. It seems some people jumped to conclusions. I suggest those that did, that you read what I actually posted again.
My only facts presented were what was on public record, that is the obvious connections between the different companies. After that, I stated it was my opinion on what I thought might be happening. Is this now deemed 'facts' because I wrote them? That seems a tad odd really, but I guess it was a long post, so not all absorbed actually in context what I wrote.
I have no further information on funding, nor does anyone else it seems, so reasonable to ask why the delay, and in my personal experience a bit odd that there are no updates if moving past the milestones appropriately, if in such a lengthy negotiation? Delays, I have noticed on many forums aren't positive signs.
I just added my opinion, to many, on why the delay, and had some thoughts on that, including the seemingly odd timing of the share offering. I was told definitively today that I have no idea what I am talking about. However, I believe everyone should always be able to ask questions, even if an apparent idiot, as only way anyone can learn. It seemed to me a bit over the top on the reply, but then again, being the apparent idiot, how should I know!
What I wrote was never meant to be fact, nor was my original question. I just wanted some sensible answers regarding my suspicion of the odd timing of the share offering. Thank you Robbo et al for clearing that up. We all don't know as much as you.
So I am a bit mystified to what 'facts' I presented that I needed to get right?
I must say brilliant charts by Robbo, and it shows me on paper how it all works, and how everything is separated.
My question from today's presentation from Robbo, is how do the charts account for the human factor?
That is, while all are separate organisations, what about the same person being involved at a Director level in all companies? How does that translate to an arms length transaction on all occasions?
I know the pat answer, no way can it be manipulated, as all accounted for in the legislation!!! However, that doesn't really answer the question. On paper there is very clear separation, but lets be real, is the human factor actually really removed when profit is to be made, or even avoiding losses? Surely the chess pieces are moved accordingly to what is the ultimate outcome, that is profit and self interest in the end?
To me, as the apparent idiot, it would seem that the human factor will have a role, regardless of how many charts show differently. I also suspect no chart or data will be able to monitor such human involvement, but it does look real good on paper!!!
I hope for all shareholders that the brilliant paper charts provided by Robbo will actually prove correct on how all transactions will transpire in the future for KNL and associated entities.
I won't be back again, but I needed to point out some inconsistencies in what was stated today, which was a real effort to discredit inaccurately what I actually said.
To all KNL Shareholders
Regards, and I will always wish you all the best in your future decisions.
gsmaree
Expand
(20min delay)