Rimtalay, Rimtalay, Rimtalay ...In my previous post I asked you...

Rimtalay, Rimtalay, Rimtalay ...

In my previous post I asked you legitimate questions in the spirit of debate.

So why your unnecessarily antagonistic response "Just your opinion, that is all, and that means little to me"?

If everyones opinion means so little to you WHY IN THE HECK ARE YOU SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON THIS FORUM?

Huh?

But seeing you commenced this tone of conversation, let me respond in kind.

I have no doubt that the SA'n security market is huge. It is huge ONLY because SA is a 3rd world s___hole that no self respecting 1st world company would ever be placing all its eggs into the one basket.

Now I will try to further explain the "why's" to YOUR questions, seeing that you seem to be incapable of connecting any dots yourself.

1. Why will Australian QTK shareholders not benefit from the sale of Multi-Trak?

Um, let's think about this. Do you know of a precedent where a company goes into Administration and the previous shareholders/investors/creditors profit out of the deal? In this case only MP will profit if he is allowed to purchase Multitrak. I cannot even believe you asked that question. I think this is all covered in the book Dummies-Guide-To-Administration-101.

2. Why will Australian QTK shareholders not benefit from SA?

Um, because QTK Australia (if it ever re-listed) would probably not see a penny for years to come (if ever). Have you heard of SA'n exchange controls, i.e. funds cannot flow out of the country freely? Have you heard of the Rand and the likelihood of its depreciation? Do you realise SA is just south of Zimbabwe where inflation runs at well over 11,200,000% per annum (yes, read that number again) and the overall instability in the entire African continent will eventually flow through to SA where the regime is already in turmoil?

3. Why will Australian QTK shareholders be left out of pocket?

See points 1 and 2 above.

So, mate, come up with legitimate arguments (because you certainly have not mastered the art of debate), rather than simply plagiarising facts that you glean from outdated material.