At no stage did I state nor imply that it was directed solely at...

At no stage did I state nor imply that it was directed solely at our trusty correspondent MS. That's your assumption ....which surely isn't in favour of the practice of ramping?

The mods eventually responded to a practice that wasn't a good one. Ramping directly or via an external website is very poor practice and it goes on a heck of a lot more than is regulated. Which among the many reasons why there's a disclaimer when you sign on.

As for eyeballing, people say shocking things to eachother online that they wouldn't in real life. As you well know.

My point stands that you cannot necessarily trust someone who you've eyeballed who for instance, shouts everyone drinks any more than the next person. But it works. Which surely is why people do it. I immediately hit the 'caution' button when this happened and it seems everyone was outraged. The relevant person is extremely wealthy but everyone was falling over themselves about the supposed "generosity". In relative terms, it doesn't make him generous at all. Not even remotely.

Again you can eyeball someone who assures you that things are about to really happen, and we're perilously close etc. But that person hasn't lived up to expectations in any respect IMO. You seem to mistake me for someone who has responsibilities as a Board member or as a major shareholder.

I'm wary of anyone who likes to throw insults and isolate individuals, and trivialise their concerns, and ridicule instead of discuss the substance of their concerns. Only you would know if you've done that, or actually engaged in substantive and considered discussion.

As for the report, I'm cautiously optimistic. Otherwise I wouldn't continue to hold. As I've said many times, but for some reason you want to put me into a corner that's entirely negative.

No I'm not! I just have a LOT of concerns. Anyone who has a passing familiarity with the progress of the company and an idea of fair comment should understand why. But apparently I'm only allowed to have the concerns that the majority hold. I know it makes you feel good want to enforce that requirement, but it's hardly conducive to fair discussion.