idle ramblings

idle ramblings posted to CAZ thread.
I'm entitled to because average buy 1.43 exit 62.5 app loss $3k

1) All investors are in the share market to make money
2) Most investors have different invesment criteria read risk\reward tolerance
3) Everbody here has lost money on a share in fact on EVERY share transaction there is a winner and a loser (ignoring point 2)
4) Nobody likes being told that thet are foolish\sucker\gambling when they do lose esp. when everybody who comments is ignorant of the holders position re point 2 above and they are conveniently forgetting points 3 and 4
5) Some people have changed their investment strategies over time based on previous experience\age....
6) Why should anyone expect Bowler to be NOT held acountable for his decision? revenge and bitterness are just as valid human emotions as greed (see point 1)
7) Given point 6 then I think Bowler needs to be shot because for some unknown reason he went back on 100 years of mining history and his decision flies in the face of the recent use it or lose it policy changes to the mining act
8) as yet noone is aware of the why apart from some loose interpretation of public interest
9) caz offered rio $750K for shov!!!!!! 150% on rio expenditure but were declined coz rio wanted daddy to sort it out - kinda puts the arguments that caz was sneaky and underhanded out the window (even tho the lease was vacant anyway) in my eyes

So please don't tell me
1) im a gambler
2) i deserve it
3) big co will always win cos they have more $$$ (your advice is a self fulfilling prophecy)
4) unexplained decisions that refute historical precedent should be accepted
5) rios intent

I believe that
1) caz got sh*t on
2) caz will not recover from this
3) the caz situation (in my eyes) is very different to that when i first invested so i should run a mile
4) bowler needs to front up and explain his reasoning (or lack of) in public. The CAZ shareholders meeting would be an appropriate location
5) they used to burn witches. what about the devil
6) his financial position should possibly be investigated (baa baa)
7) there would have been a lot less carnage if the decision was made promptly - it had drifted .90
8) sue12 remind me of the good old school days when some "people" know something that you don't know. great way of losers keeping themseleves in the limelight
9) given point 8 BHP CAZ MOU ain't that flash as far as CAZ concerned

I want to
1) sue Bowler for ALL caz shareholders immediate losses and losses from potential (lost) future earnings

I wish all (ex)holders the best
PS Thanks for posting Bowlers email, he is about to enjoy some kiwi hospitality