You barely defended your views with any solid evidence or...

You barely defended your views with any solid evidence or understanding and listing every possible potential. Like many others, my analysis was positive as I had a positive view on the company given the information I had at hand or access to at any time so what's your point. Any valuation related commentary from me was always based on tangible evidence and always stipulated as "if" specific events/goals are achieved, like with the others you provided input on this. I defended many attributes of the company and the investment thesis but poor operational standards and poor communication I did not and have flagged as issues.


Every holder knew the financial viability of this business hinged on the success of the company getting PH1 operations started, this is the same for any mining company. Some decide not to take the bet, some bailed along the way and the rest have kept the bet. This is investing 101. With fixable problems and a new operational focused CEO, they are going to raise the money they need and keep going, but it won't be a rewarding experience for shareholders as to do it they will destroy the capital structure further. As I have written the other week, I am gone because of this reason so I won't be losing anything.

For the record again I have never made a personal attack against you but its up to you if you wan't to live in fantasy land on that. I recall period where you kept making that claim as well as being serially moderated for such and you could never back it up then so don't relive this lie again to pump yourself up as some better person.