"You are entitled to that view. As I am entitled to use my references/sources as I wish. If people did their own research they would be able to point out the falshoods and inaccuracies I am accused of posting. So far there haven't been any - dwell on that for a moment."If you can't link me to a publically available information then that would render your entire point moot until proven otherwise. When you claim things then you would to back up your claim. In this case, we know for an absolute fact that you could not.
It is almost impossible to point out inaccuracies in opinions and interpretations as they very arbitrary in nature. Almost everything you have said are opinions and thus that logic applies. To illustrate, you have mentioned something along the lines of "Mr. Ye is a very smart man and not a random country hick who just wants money". What is it that constitutes "smart"? "Random country hicks"? It would differ from person to person because they are subjective. The moment you try to pass on opinions as factual statements, I can then challenge you on that and I have. The result, however, would only revert your quasi factual statements into what rIf youightfully are personal opinions. This is why court and judges exist
@minimoke and their decisions on "beyond reasonable doubt" system. So dwell on that for a moment. Almost everything you have said are personal opinions and interpretations and you are entitled to that.
"More than happy to. But for context purposes are you posting from Australia or NZ. I am in NZ so I am referencing NZ law / situations as that is where this issue will be decided."Why even ask? Obviously NZ law...
"...Yes I do believe NZIPL has a strong case for an injunction...."
But...
"...I shant go into detail..."
"...But I will say the Appeal Court has already alluded to this as a potential solution."
...and all you are saying is that it is a "potential" solution...not too different to a "POTENTIAL" predator drone strike or a meteor falling on Synlait's plant...or MORE REALISTICALLY, a minor indemnity charge paid for by Stonehill.
Your entiee comment has proven to me that you got nothing then an intention to disseminate pure negativity towards the stock.
You have no access to any new information nor detail..
You didn't/refused to elaborate despite myself having given you some. If I could give you that then how is it that you are so incapable of doing the same?
What have you actually got?
@minimoke?
(20min delay)