something to consider, page-69

this post maybe a little all over the place. i don't want to waste time on grammar structure etc.

mose i wonder if you and the others that have sold your ags stock would prefer not see an individual that continues to hold prosper in any way. i understand if this is the case as it's human nature to a certain extent i guess. i am not being patronising. i hate missing opportunities too. it eats away at me big time.

with regard to this thread and the position i have taken it is not accusatorial. it is all about hoping that other shareholders get insipred to ask the question.

the question being: was the quasar decision to stockpile unconscionable or something similar with respect to alliance?

it appears that a lot of people of this forum think that alliance was screwed by quasar.

i am not prepared to make that claim but i want to ask some authority to answer that question.

i think the accc is that authority.

i have a couple of dilemmas:

1. if you make a complaint to the accc the accc will not automatically investigate.

2. if the acc investigate they will not tell you that they are investigating (asic do tell you. i think asic have this thing called an initial investigation and they tell you when it is complete and whether they will take the matter further or not).

when i read about arrium and all the state and federal politicians getting involved it makes me angry when i think of how alliance was effected by the quasar stockpiling. i think i remember reading somewhere that mr dunlop approached a minister or two and was told that it's a business matter and that no poli was interested in getting involved.

when i read about mr frydenberg approaching rio tinto re rio tinto's plan to squeeze suppliers it makes me angry when i think of how alliance was effected by the quasar stockpiling. for the record mr frydenberg has only been the resources minister for a few months so he wasn't relevant pre sale of four mile.

so let me say it again:

i want to ask the the relevant authority to tell me if what happened to alliance was unacceptable or not.

i think it would help if others asked too.

the more people arcing up the better.

small mineral exploration companies are extremely important for the continued prosperity of australia. it's important that small guys continue to thrive and grow and small guys are not turned off forming joint ventures etc.

some people way simply not get what i am on about no matter how much i post.

i appeal to those that do understand what i am saying and to get involved.

it's time to start asking questions.

i am prepared to accept an authorities decision.

if a ruling went in alliance's favour then i believe that alliance should be compensated.

here is my disclaimer again:

for the record i am not making any accusations of any wrong doing by any party associated with the four mile uranium project. it's not for me to say what is for example fair or unfair.