Opinion From Rolling, page-27

Rolling, I will follow in MB's vein of positive interaction to maybe help you in your debating style, with a view to increasing your credibility. I do this hoping you are sincere in your contrary opinion and to assist you in getting that message across for the benefit of all.

You have done a little research and found a quote by * stating,
"Our core business model is working with clients on a retainer who pay us to create sponsored content articles."

You have then made an unfounded 'leap of logic' that the article was payed for by EDE, made up a connection to the CR, and then declared, as a supported fact (in your mind), the whole enterprise a disgrace.

The problem is that many on this forum do Do Their Own Research. A quick goggle will present this article,

https://www.thesplicenewsroom.com/*-sponsored-editorial/

(hope it works, if not, google it. )

In it, David Higgens, the CEO of * makes clear,
"Any kind of client content is declared by a disclaimer and the label ‘Special Report’ or #ad in our social media."

He also explains,
"We have four full-time journalists including myself doing about 75 to 80 stories a week."

So a different story starts to emerge. A journalist, needing to write around 15 to 16 articles a week, (not all of which are paid "Special Reports", nobody would bother with such a biased newsletter) has seen EDE's run of news and seems to have contacted GS for his opinion. GS sounded positive and encouraged by the way the company is going. He was probably stoked to be able to talk with an 'IMO clause' as opposed to the strictures of an ASX, substantiated only, release.

So, not a paid article, fact. Do you see how the rest of your argument, so clear in your mind, crumbles from there? And with it the authority you are obviously trying to convey of a better researched, smarter than the average bear detective who can see through the 'BS'.

I do not have MB's patience so I will give 2 other examples from memory of where you presented something as a fact, when, in fact, it was only an unsubstantiated, negatively biased opinion.

You keep bringing up receivership. Your 'proof' was Lakes Oil as an example of a failed CR bringing a company to the brink. This again is an illogical leap. To my mind, EDE was hoping to raise enough to take it through to being cashflow positive. Yes it is obvious there will be a shortfall. But if only 1/2 of EDE's projections come through in the next 6 months, one more CR will not be so bad as the forward momentum will be firmly established. They are building 'proof' of product and from most indicators, slowly but steadily growing.
Lakes Oil is nearly the polar opposite. It has had it's main asset in Vic denied it by legislation and were trying to raise money to, hopefully, start anew in South Australia. These are 2 completely different beasts and the dichotomy of your comparison actually serves to discredit your endeavour.

The other example was when Korea Consultants International and EDE chose not to continue with their relationship. You insisted at the time this meant EdenCrete was a failure. When questioned by the forum how you came to this conclusion you repeatedly replied "It's in the announcements" (my paraphrasing)

"Korea Consultants International and EDE chose not to continue with their relationship" is a fact. Yes it could be looked up in the ASX announcements. That has nothing to do with your assertion that therefore EdenCrete is a failure. I believe you were modded for insisting that it does and still don't fully understand the difference. If a poster followed your advice and looked at the announcements (in general as you never pointed to a specific one) they would have seen that KC Industries leapt into the gap. So from supplementary evidence, decided surely it could not have completely failed if another company snapped up the opportunity. They may have seen all the positive test and trial results and come to the conclusion you were mistaken. No conspiracy, no foul, just different interpretations of the facts. Personally I feel KC International tried to use their clout to demand the recipe to EdenCrete as part of the deal. So IMHO not a failure of EdenCrete but a smart business move by EDE.

Sorry for the length but I just thought up a real life scenario that may assist.

MB goes to visit Rolling. As they are standing in Rolling's kitchen he announces "I smell a rat"

MB: I don't smell anything

Rolling: Yes yes, I smell a rat. There! Did you hear that? I heard and smelt a rat. It is a fact there is a rat in here.

MB: I don't smell or hear anything. So I cannot logically agree that the rat is a factual reality. But let us search together for non-subjective evidence. Maybe some rat droppings or chewed packets to substantiate your opinion.

IMO DYOR GLTA