might as well have left it suspended, page-6

RB,

You said "By the way, the mods had a different take on your claims and classified them as unsubstantiated."

I assume by 'mods' you refer to the 'moderators' here. Neither my facts, not claims as I don't make any, nor my questions, have ever been moderated. So clearly my posts are substantiated. Yours occasionally are moderated and never contain substantiation. All you need to do is provide supporting evidence.

Show us where there is supporting evidence that the directors were sacked (suggesting the chairman acted illegally) and I'll agree with you. But you haven't. Can you? If so, put up or shut up about it. Otherwise it just saps away any credibility your posts might have with other readers (it's blown already with me after your AGM antics) and hurts the company SP, in my opinion. And I mean that...please, please, please show some substantive evidence to back your claims. Otherwise it is the definition of unsubstantiated.