news article - old thread getting very dull, page-28

"Vintage this is your now highly subjective viewpoint".

Dh - all views expressed here are subjective, at least to a degree, but that doesn't necessarily make then wrong

"First you accuse posters of outright lying and your changed wording changes nothing"

Please explain - who have I accused of 'outright lying'?

"You are doing a fair bit of misleading of your own. Your views conflict with that of the company totally"

How am I being misleading? Having views that conflict with those of the company does not necessarily make them misleading - particularly when they are about matters (such as the Hearing litigation) which the company has no control over.

[Besides, I am not really even disagreeing with the company. I am merely saying - in contrdiction to purd - that the petition to intervene and request for hearing are not trifling issues. Gus has not said that they are trifling (and given the legal costs, I am sure he doesn't believe that). Instead, he has said that he does not expect any delay to the granting of the SML. That may well turn out to be the case - and I hope it is - but it is NOT,of course, the only possibility - despite Gus' statement].

"No matter what spin you want to put on your view it is your subjective view and nothing more"

As I said before, there is no necessary corelation between 'subjectivity' and rightness and wrongness. It is just you using words in an attempt to discredit.

"Not only does your view conflict with public statements it conflicts directly with the view of the MD. That I know for fact, and any shareholder can ask as I did about certain claims you make here of which are both false and "misleading".

What claims? My only 'claim' is that the petition and request for Hearing are important matters and will be viewed as such by all sensible and prudent people (irrespective of whether they cause delays or not). There is nothing controversial about that. In fact, it is common for mining feasibility studies to itemise environmental litigation as one of many project risk factors they have to potentially face.

"The final outcome will be "proof" vintage, proof of who was right and who was wrong. No spin or long dialogue, it really is that simple"

That is rhetorical nonsense. There is no right and wrong. The intervention IS a critical issue and will remain so until resolved. A positive result does not change its level of criticality NOW.

If the outcome is positive for Strata - that is, if Strata is successful in its appeal and there are no further appeals by the petitioners to higher courts - then Pugsley will have earnt his pay and Strata will have 'dodged a bullet'.

If the outcome is not positive for Strata - if the appeal is dismissed - that will not be good as the project will be delayed (not derailed, just delayed).

And you and the others suggesting that the attempted intervention is a non-issue will look rather foolish.