Again, Noggie as appears to be the way with any associated...

Again, Noggie as appears to be the way with any associated parties to the Board, you fail to respond to any valid questions raised and choose only to attempt to inflame… I hope this serves you well in business, it’s a poor practice that died out sometime in the 80’s I think, yep, right about the same time Directors' liability laws.

As far as I’m concerned, I never get “angry” as you put it when it comes to business, perhaps responding to you directly without implied conjectures you find a bit confronting? I apologise if I made you uncomfortable, it was not my intention. I’ll leave the “anger” bit to people like yourself who appear loathe any interference with their own agenda. When you and Oily get on your high horses with nothing but “murmurs” and put the information out that you do, without proof or even the courtesy of discussion with related parties to see another side to the story – then you only discredit yourselves and show your true agenda very clearly.

Interesting that the 2 of you have come out in full force today, timing is quite coincidental considering the Board asked for my reasoning with the 249D to be in by 9:00am Sunday morning – and they still have not put that notice out to public yet, but I suspect you’re already privy to this aren’t you. Either way, it’s not important.

I have plenty left, so all I can say is; bring it on and I will happily answer every one of your most creative conjectures if you like. I can do this all day.

IMO DYOR.