True, you shouldn't take things out of context and that's why it's very dangerous for a ceo to talk one on one with a shareholder he knows is a poster on a forum.
Us naysayers have been saying all along but the fan bearers have always said that GC tells them the same thing. ( Peichows post got 72 thumbs )
Here is Smilez comments about the very thing.
http://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann...505617/page-113?post_id=15268741#.VXeAjdKeDGc
"as always.. those that contact Geoff or the company always get a consistent response.. i wonder when the non holders who do not contact the company will ever get their heads around this.. im tired of hearing that GC is giving out market sensitive info or priming certain holders to feed HC.. these theories are just pie in the sky.. shareholders have a right to contact their company and get general information and also have a right to share that how they see fit with consent from ADO.. every time someone has been hung out for posting their comments from GC/ADO they have always proven to be true or substantiated by other posters discussions with the company.."
http://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann...505617/page-114?post_id=15269093#.VXeBUdKeDGc
While it's not particularly material in the big picture I explained my interest was mainly to get a metric for the increase in the depth and breadth of the consulting engagements, relative to the positive comment on the range of paid interactions. He had assumed my primary concern was about a potential cap raise. On that he stated what others have reported here. They don't expect to need a cap raise, unless a very positive non-core opportunity arose - which even then may or may not require a raising.
But really we have been through this before. My questioning was really to Peichow and trying to sort out his bonafides.
For the record, I think his OP in this thread is a good one and relevant for all companies with a market cap under 500 million.
ADO Price at posting:
8.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
)
(20min delay)