i'm baaack, page-43

alpha-angry can't help himself, shovel out and furiously digging himself deeper and deeper into the same misguided hole, apparently blithely unaware of the irony of his comment "any Tom, Harry or [angry] can throw up questions and try to put doubt into peoples minds", while then going on to throw up all sorts of spurious questions.

From the outset I provided answers to relevant questions about my position, even before they were asked. If alpha-a couldn't grasp the info then, I'm not sure what language I can now use to get the message across, but let me try spelling things out as simply as possible by working through his post.

Re: "yeah I have an idea what has been going on"
- yeah, not in my case you don't, I assure you that you don't have the slightest clue. Infuriating, aint it?

Re: "yeah you may not have had shares, but has your mate?"
- yeah, can you be a bit more specific? Do you mean "mate" in terms of domestic partner or friend? But in either case the answer is no. To be even more explicit, except for the connections on this forum, to my knowledge I do not now have, nor have I ever had any relationship, domestic, social, commercial or otherwise with anyone who now holds or has held shares in GCN.

Q: "now again I ask, what are the motives of joining h/c in order to only post on GCN"
A: (once again) Altruism

(Re: "initially bringing family members into it" - you've harped on that issue a bit, a-a, are you suggesting that if a public company employs family members and issues arise involving them that are pertinent to the operations of the company, that such issues should somehow remain sacrosanct? Or are you saying that the issue I raised was not relevant to the operations of the company?)

Q: "Are you telling us you have not worked for a company associated with GCN, one that was bought out by GCN"
A: Yes

Re: "come on, come clean with these people here. explain your motive."
- see above.

Q: "can you tell us your occupation"
A: I could, but I won't, that's no more relevant to this forum than the size of my shoes.

Re: "(why you claim to know about these things)"
- which particular "things" are you referring to?

Q: "are you involved with a rival site."
A: It's not clear whether you refer to a rival site to HC or GoConnect, but in either case the answer is no.
(Although, if you refer to GCN, I have an idea which site you may mean. Someone been having a bit of a moan to you about that? Why, is there a concern that the core business is so fragile that a nascent competitive site might have an impact? If so, that's not a very good sign now, is it?)

Q: "when did that site start"
A: which site?

Q: "tell us a bit about that site"
A: which site? Maybe you could tell us a bit about which site you refer to, in which case I might be able to comment.

Q: "where did some of that from"
A: say what? Stop digging for a moment, concentrate on one thing at a time.

Q: "is this a result of claims against GCN, employment problems?"
A: please try to be a little more precise with your questions. Is what a result of ... etc? This unmentionable site?

Re: "I just don't like people coming on here and using the forum if they have an axe to grind with a former employee"
- and is an alpha just doesn't like something then the plebs should quake? My knees are rock solid. But back to the issue, I too wouldn't endorse someone using the forum to further a dispute with an former employee. I also wouldn't endorse a former employee using the forum to vent against an employer. Or is that what you meant? If so, as I said, shovel down, one thing at a time.

Re: "but worse than that to try and mislead people as a result of that."
- Oh the irony, the irony. Mislead? Moi? By suggesting that anyone interested in the medium- to long-term potential take a close look at the fundamentals of the business? That's misleading? Silly me, here I was thinking that theoretical extrapolation of statistics and wild speculation about a market of billions in China was a much better fit for the definition of 'misleading'.

Re: "Now I am not accusing anyone of anything"
- phew, I'm glad we got that one straightened out, for one moment ...

Re: "but Tromper am I pretty much on the mark,"
- Well, seeing as you asked, no, you're about 180 degrees off target, off on a wild goose dig actually.

Re: "punters, this industry is competitive, when some people leave employment their is sometimes bad feelings"
- Punters, when some people have no idea of the facts they throw in completely irrelevant, fallacious red herrings to distract attention from, how can I put this, ... the fundamentals.

Re: "then we have rival sites, and we wont go into much more about that here"
- Why not? Isn't any competitive site is a relevant issue, particularly if it is of such concern that you make such an issue of it? What do the punters think, should angry let us know which site he is referring to? Or is this yet another issue that it would "not be appropriate" for you to comment on, angry?

Re: "there is obviously a lot more to this as many would have worked out, numerous new posters appearing, some multi nicking, look back at posts about a month ago"
- The relevance of this obtuse comment escapes me. How can new posters or even purported multi nickers affect the fundamentals?

Re: "question is why and what motives"
- a far as this refers to me, how many times do I need to answer about motive? But perhaps you're not familiar with the concept, a-a, maybe a definition would help:
'Altruism: /'æltru??z?m/ is a concern for the welfare of others.'

Re: "I have a pretty good idea, and Tromper knows I do."
- Actually, what I know from everything you've said in response to my posts is that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever, you're barking down the wrong hole entirely.

As for your response to Grudgy,a-a:

Re: "only 4 Aussie companies were approved to be on LG and Sony, so GCN are in with the likes of Fox sports, yahoo and big pond"
- approval is a good first step, while performance, profitable operation is the objective. And the guide to future performance? ... look to the past, look to the fundamentals.

Re: "do you really think Mastercard would be involved with a company that is claimed by some here to be a farce or scam, or a failure."
- no sensible person would pay attention to any negative spin about farce and scam without supporting facts, just as no sensible person pays any attention to positive spin based on theoretical calculations. Only the fundamentals matter.

... and yet more misleading, entirely unsubstantiated fantasy spray about my non-existant mate.

Duh.