NML is due its interrim results now, last year it was the 28th of this month.

They are setting up a new site to explore/research/analyse and all the equipment to do this should be on site now, and drilling should start soon, all this extra news should be covered in the interims.

does anyone have any further positive views on this company ??

takahe - 24 Jun'05 - 21:11 - 1013 of 1013
The Room Service was a market maker scam where they were selling people shares they didn't have...totally different.
You really are obsessed with hatred for NML. Do you see yourself as a 'white knight' here because you certainly don't come over that way.
One of these days, the management may catch up with you. I think you should be much more careful who you accuse on public BBs.Have you ever heard of the word 'libel'?

I'm not trying to be some White Knight on NML. In fact, all I am trying to do is inject a sense of realism into the blatant ramping that frequents the BBs and make sure that the new readers and prospective shareholders get a balanced picture of both points of view.

If the majority of shareholders had their way, they would convince the new people that nothing was wrong. You only have to look at NML's history over the past 8 months to see what I mean. Even you, have convinced your family members to buy NML, presumably on the promise that good times were on the way and massive profits to be made, only for the new shareholders to find out that their investment has diminished in value and the good news had no effect on the price.

People like ITD and Baughfell are giving NML a bad name, because they are trying to claim that there is no problem - there is no mystery seller - when all the evidence says there is and the more reasonable holders have believed that there is for the past 8 months. The longer they try to ignore this, the more likely that they are going to be blamed for the coming disappointment.

I've already stated that I believe the share price will spike on the good news, only to fall back again when the mystery seller starts selling into the strength. The recriminations that will come afterwards are likely to be harsh. Many will try to blame me - for de-ramping the share. But the fact is that my opinions and views had no effect on the price whatsoever. No one individual can effect the price, except by trading substantial quantities of shares. The seller is the cause of the share price currently being depressed, not some BB disagreements.

If the NML shareholders are so secure in the belief that NML will rise in value, why do they attack any detracting post so vehemently? Are they so insecure in their belief in the share and the company that they think that my posts could seriously damage the companies prospects. It is absolute rubbish to suggest that my posts would have any effect on the share price at all.

The reason the other shareholders (and yourself) attack my posts, is because they contain a lot of legitimate questions about the project and common sense answers that the others have failed to look for. Because it upsets the cosy little picture they have painted of the companies propsects. Where I can I have tried to provide data to support my case. You rarely see that from the others. They would rather attack the contrary view with words and sometimes abuse, than do a bit of research and find out the answers for themselves.

Last year (and this) Wendy stated that she thought the analysis of the trades that I did was valuable to seeing how the trading was progressing. It did (and does) provide an insight into what may be transpiring. I don't claim to have all the answers. I don't claim to have all the questions......but at least I am asking them.

The others are ignoring the facts, because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs and faith in the company. Wendy said that 'faith' shouldn't be a factor in making investment decisions, only research and information. The trouble is that to the majority of NML shareholders on this BB and ADVFNs:

FAITH IS EVERYTHING

because they don't have evidence that supports their belief that the companies share price will rise. In fact, the only 'proof' they have is that the share price has DROPPED over the past 8 months and that the management's promises have been repeatedly broken. As Wendy put it, the management are inexperienced and incompetent.

It would be interesting to see if the others could come up with some data (on their own), that supports their belief in NML. The only figures they've seen so far are the spreadsheets that I came up with using Wendy's and NML's figures. Even these spreadsheets have been rubbished by the other shareholders. So you can see, apart from the statements made by the management and the company, whose credentials have been tarnished by Wendy, the others have very little to support their beliefs.

When I make statements about the company, I am careful about what I say. It is a pity that the management do not follow the same course. They have made frequent statements about the mine start, especially those that said they would be producing in October 2004, that later turned out to be rubbish.

If the management want to try and sue me for libel, they are welcome to try. However, as the lawyers would point out to them, it's bad enough to be labelled as inexperienced and incompetent on a Bulletin Board, but it is quite a different matter to be labelled as such in a Court of Law.

If the management are stupid enough to press the matter, they might find that they do more damage to their own company, than they could possibly do to me. Besides, I have been careful to qualify statements or merely to repeat what others have said. I wonder if the management would like to sue Wendy for calling them inexperienced and incompetent? They might hold a grudge against her for dropping them in it with the AIM regulators and sparking the complaint about the missed declarations. If Wendy hadn't claimed that nothing was wrong, just as ITD claimed that there is no mystery seller, then the directors would not now be under investigation and possibly facing a fine for failing to declare transactions correctly.

One of these days, and soon in my opinion, the management will have to face a number of very angry shareholders, when their investment does not multiply as they believed it would. The directors may have their options, they may have their fees, but they can not promise that they will manage to meet the share prices that would enable them to take advantage of these options.

The sad fact is that the majority of shareholders accept what the management say as gospel truth, when in actual fact, like any company, they should only believe what they can prove with independent and corroberating data.

If the management said that white was black, the shareholders would believe them.......................... then get run over on the next zebra crossing!

For those that are still bothering to read Anomalous, he is as usual being economical with the truth.

What I actually said, (amongst many other similar things), on Energyi's "Charts and Fundamentals" thread on ADVFN, was this:

"wdurham - 13 Apr'05 - 11:46 - 4541 of 5408 edit

" What we do know though, is that there has been some missing RNS's. The bank for one and the directors (that converted expenses) for the other."

I'm getting fed up with this. Why are these UKREG statements "missing"?

The full number of shares issued for the convertible drawdown was announced by the company on 20th January.

The full number of shares issued to directors in lieu of accrued fees was announced by the company on 29th December. Those accrued fees were spelled out, by named director, in the Annual Results published in November. They relate mainly to the non-execs. Shares were issued at 10 to the A$ on the outstanding amounts.

The full number of shares issued to the Badenhorsts has been announced by the company, on 4 August and 29 December.

The AIM rules state that the AIM listed company must disclose such information, insofar as they have it, without delay.

They did.

Where is the problem?

-----------------------------------

wdurham - 15 Apr'05 - 19:14 - 4743 of 5408 edit

< <>>

And the equally interminable harping on about missing RNS statements is equally silly. The UKREG announcements were made as required - they merely lacked the fine detail required by the AIM rules. The purpose of the rules is to try to ensure that shareholders are kept informed about major shareholders' buying and selling activities, and directors dealings.

Tell me, as an investor, that you don't know how many shares the lending bank now hold? And you don't know how many shares the Badenhorsts hold? And you are equally unaware of the directors' holdings following the issue of shares distributed to them in lieu of the accrued fees stated in the last Annual Report?

There was indeed inadequate disclosure from the point of view of the AIM rules, but there was definitely material disclosure, and no shareholder who has two braincells to rub together is in any doubt as to who owns what."

-----------------------------------

I did NOT say there was "nothing wrong". My opinion and what I said is clear from the above.

The only person responsible for reporting NML to AIM and the FSA was the person who actually DID it - Anomalous.

The only person responsible for continuing to nag the AIM team and the FSA over this matter is Anomalous.

If the directors of NML are fined or in any other way punished, the only person responsible will be Anomalous.


And now I shall once again filter him. His ongoing drivel is increasingly irritating.

Wendy - he is also taking your name in vain on ADVFN!

Why is so much rubbish put about, why not wait for an RNS.

Here's a Wendy post to remind everyone what she thinks of the management!

wdurham - 1 Apr'05 - 17:12 - 3473 of 5408
The delay of production activity until June is disappointing. This shambolic management have even managed to beat the Wendy Factor. I already had 2.5 times their timescale factored in, and they can't even meet THAT!

Anomalous1 - 25 Jun'05 - 19:46 - 1018 of 1018 (Filtered Forever)

They moved into Angola in October 2004 and are producing diamonds by April 2005..that can't be bad, compared to some.

Last drilling report was 17/05/2005, what is the ,hysteria' for forget panicking, SP[offer] is 4.0, so what.

True.

The only one panicking is the bitter ex shareholder N**** S**** (aka sad bast*rd) who keeps concocting ever more intricate self-satisfying theories to prove to himself that he was right to sell out of NML at a loss.

Thankyou, Takahe, but frankly, I am past caring.

Anom has shot himself in the foot too many times for there to be any benefit whatsoever in me continuing with any of his nit-picking, detail-obsessive arguments.

My opinions about the management are well known, my opinions about the project are well known and my opinions about this non-disclosure nonsense are also well known. My previous put downs of Anom's earlier ramping and vastly inflated figures are well documented. I maintain a "wait and see" attitude to the stock, and have never ramped it here or anywhere. Nor have I ever attempted to pull wool over the eyes of new shareholders - I have even been downbeat in reply to some of them, to mitigate some of the more fanciful comments made. I have no need to take refuge in claims of being "lied to" to excuse my mistakes. I have no need to blame anyone else for things I did of my own free will.

There is no further point in me even acknowledging the man's existence.

Wendy D...I hope we don't have to 'wait and see' for too much longer.

Wendy D - 26 Jun'05 - 09:53 - 1023 of 1024
My opinions about the management are well known, my opinions about the project are well known and my opinions about this non-disclosure nonsense are also well known.

The fact that you dropped the management in it is well known - and I do hope they ask you to contribute to any fine.

The fact that the non-disclosure matter has the AIM regulation team investigating NML is well known - and Wendy caused their involvement throught denying that anything was wrong.

The fact that you admit that there is a major seller is also well known - contrary to the views of some of your fellow shareholders.

But most of all, your 'shameless' ramping of Minmet is also well known to the previous Minmet shareholders, who still hold a grudge against you for ramping the share.

One wonders if you're being backed to ramp this share too, because there are some serious questions about the project that have never been answered and for a so-called 'expert' to ignore these obvious questions leads some to believe that you are deliberately ignoring the obvious and simple answers.

I wonder if the NML shareholders will feel the same way as the MNT shareholders feel about you in a years time?

Will be very interesting to see if the seller has dunped at 3.25p today.If they have I would immediately abandon all hope as this will never get anywhere with the seller having an unlimited amount of stock to sell.

An unlimited amount of stock?

Are you sure about that?

Where's he getting his unlimited amount of stock, is he mining it out of the ground?

Theyve been selling for the last 18 months with no sign of them running out any time soon.What is more crucial is the ever decreasing price they are prepared to accept for their shares that is of vital importance imo.

Maybe that suggests they are running out of shares to sell - they might not be that bothered about getting a good price for the last few?

And there's the trade - a massive 50K!

No evidence there of the seller only the mms dont want the stock.

Glad you accept there's no evidence of a "seller" now.

There's a lot of poisonous snakes around today..