Seriously ... if there is a poster who can make sense of what is...

Seriously ... if there is a poster who can make sense of what is noted below then I would like to see a summary.

The mis-shaping of such key issues by the application of such a rudimentary rhetorical device is, in my view, little more than puerile, confected fluff.

"1. Would you rather be a shareholder who just learns, from an ASX announcement, that your mining investment is now in receivership, and you realise that you have done your dough, because the management of the mining company, you trusted, and thought was ok, didn't read the writing on the wall, for whatever reason, and held onto to those non-producing, cost accruing shareholder approved tenements, and went broke.

or;

2. Would you rather have a company that you have invested in, consider the data from the Jorc reports, geologists, financial reports (expenses), global supply/demand index, your shareholder approved Board's recommendations, and make the hard decision to let the lease expire in order to preserve funds which ultimately leads them to find a richer revenue resource, or perhaps go through a transformation activity to save the company from destruction and liquidation?"

Staggering - the abject absurdity of the above is ... well ... I'm lost for words! Try reading the 2nd question aloud while standing in front of the mirror! You wont be able to finish because you will stop halfway through and wonder what you are reading and why it doesn't make sense?

And then this 'pearl';

"CGB for whatever reason let those tenements expire to preserve my funds and my investment."

Ok then (here's a simple question), if what is written is accurate, then what is the explanation for CGB spending shareholders funds on 'geologists' fees?

My suggestion to all posters, before reading anymore absurdly skewed paras, similar to those cited above, would be to peruse the following.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/science-choice/201504/what-is-confirmation-bias