RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:A relevant exampleBP, I have absolutely no issue with substantive, OBJECTIVE, fact based rebuttal but Treetop has never, ever offered it. Negative is good if it's fact based but Treetop has continually distorted facts to a negative bias. He talks about a small reserve but neglects or dismisses the surrounding resource that's wide open. He talks about low grade but ignores or dismisses the role that metallurgy plays. Is that objective??? It is pure, unadulterated distortion of the facts. This last idiotic post of trying to draw a connecting line between RBX's issues to AGG was the last straw. Most everyone on this board is well aware there are huge risks associated with AGG but there are potentially huge rewards, and ample, factual information to support the upside, once again something Treetop sidesteps or completely ignores. Goldencranes SWOT is balanced. It clearly spells out the risks. He also points out the huge potential on the upside in a detailed, very technical manner. It is obvious to me when I read this person's post he is an engineer. I know how they communicate as I deal with them almost daily. Goldencrane also states he was an analyst, something I would have to tend to believe, once again because of the their in depth, technical grasp of the data. If Treetop wants me to respect their opinion than offer a counterpoint to goldencrane's posts on a point by point basis. I've challenged Treetop several times to do this and he/she always neatly deflects the challenge or ignores it. Treetop is a basher with an agenda IMO.