Last response to you ever, because I think you are just game...

Last response to you ever, because I think you are just game playing and I know it annoys some readers but I think factual errors need to be addressed.

You are all questions and no answers aren't you. You were asked to support your quarterly estimates and you didn't. Asked to provide figures based on full production and didn't.

You've got faked surprise "oh debt funding now" when it has been mentioned in several announcements. You've got your little barbs like "cash dartboard thread" and "domino's anyone", you've got deliberate provocation like "forgot to turn the power on" but nothing in the way of actual analysis.

Here are some questions you could answer and use to build a negative case that is stronger than the current one:
Under what circumstances will they need to raise money and what will it mean to the SP? If not for U.S expansion then what?
Has the Moolap plant been processing waste for 18 months now? What contractual problems have there been?

Has any other company found a way to deal with aluminium recycling waste in a way that allows them to have sales contracts for the reconstituted al oxide? If so who are they?

In order to produce 1500 tonnes per month of oxide, what is a reasonable estimate of the amount of waste that would be required to be processed? This is a contractual minimum amount. Does that indicate processing confidence or not?

Why did John Pugh move from SSC to MHM? If it doesn't show confidence in the MHM team and technology, then why did he do it?

What's a plant producing EBIT of $8.6 pa worth? More or less than $20m? What is it worth when the first plant is a test case and the technology can be transplanted world wide?

I don't care what the SP currently is, that is not a valid argument.

You could start your own thread and fill with it a properly researched point of view, instead of throwing out red herring questions and moving on every time one of your little digs or fact free suppositions is disproved. You can write in a way that is not designed to cause maximum annoyance.

You can prove your value as an astute investor and contributor to the threads, or you can continue with the one liners, the barbs, baits, faked surprise, unreferenced and always unfavourable guesses, low ball, calculation free estimates and unfounded digs at the managers of a company who have outperformed the market and certainly outperformed anything you have owned over the last year and now are on the verge of a global expansion, using technology invented and implemented by one of the directors.