I'm leaving the subject line intact, because it is with some reluctance that I now report to you that I will not post again for a while. My health is more important than the truth, which in my perhaps not so humble opinion, I have defended to the extent of my abilities.

I've said it in different ways before this, but I am more convinced than ever that there are powers that wish me silent. When I looked at the bigger picture this morning, I realized something that I will now present as my hypothesis. Conjecture. Not science. Okay, are we clear? First, the groundwork for that hypothesis.

I've been trying to present a factual basis for the methods of determining the value of chromite ores. There are an incredible number of variables to consider, many of which only apply to chromite. Even the grade of the ore and its concentrates are not simply measured by the Cr2O3 content.

Phil (particularly) and I have been engaged in significant amounts of research, to try and find information that is very hard to find. The chromite market is a controlled market, a cartel. They control most of the information, but certainly things like pricing and production, too. But we have narrowed down our searches, and we've begun to find reliable information. I was paying for market information, but I won't continue to do so, because that information soon appears on the ICDA website anyway.

As Phil posted yesterday, the ICDA website shows that chromite ore prices continue to fall, and so does the demand.

And as I pointed out, Micon did a report considered by CIBC (certainly also copied to our Board), which assessed FWR chromite ores and the world market for them. As none of that information was passed on to us, I think it's a reasonable assumption that it wasn't as positive as some of the amateur opinions that have been flying around these boards.

Now, I had told Phil that I would present some further research I'd done into the economics of ferrochrome production. The critical variable there is grade. Grade is the critical variable in the economic analysis. But I also told Jim that I wanted to talk about that, and that I wanted to talk about it before I talked to him about regional geology.

Then a curious thing happened. He publicly attacked a sick man. One he knew was sick. My thinking may or may not be sick, but my body surely is. My hypothesis is that he would go to any lengths to keep me from discussing the chromite grade/economics situation publicly.

My post last night was actually very poorly written, but the intent was to simply let our words speak for themselves. Unlike him, I didn't edit anything to create a false impression. Unlike him, I didn't lie to you. Unlike him, I didn't use insulting labels to exaggerate the misleading information that was presented.

I want to show you a couple of more things that I didn't focus on last night, but which support my hypothesis, that this attack was an intentional distraction.

He said: I am beginning to think this may be a very artful dodge of the debate you wanted and ask me to engage in, in a private message.

There are many levels of deception in this one sentence. Our PM record indicates that I began speaking to him informally. Off the record. Had I wanted to address him publicly, I'd simply have done it here. (Aside: I have many professionals who only ever speak to me off the record, as in PMs. I had Jim's name passed to me as a referral, and I simply wanted to talk to him a little bit.) At no point did I ever suggest a public debate. It wasn't my idea, ever. I accepted the idea of a public presentation of our thoughts, but I didn't originate the idea.

Also, he implies that I have malevolent or evasive intent in not meeting his demands for a debate that I didn't ask for. And this was with full knowledge of my health issues. He purposely and knowingly put me into a lose-lose situation. I perceived that I had only two options available to me: a) Retain my privacy, and by inference, affirm his smear of my character; or b) Disclose personal information to defend myself.

He lied to me about his pledge to maintain the secrecy of privileged and private personal information. And then he lied to you by knowingly misrepresenting the situation. And then he further misleads the reader by suggesting this is about some urgent debate that he has fabricated himself.

I remind all readers that he neither requires my consent nor my approval to post his urgent messages to this board. Ane yet, he has yet to do so. That, people, is a scientific truth. We have no data.

I'd like to isolate another exchange of ideas from later in his original post:

"They have ME as their principal target."

Who are they Hoov?....Again, you never name these powerful forces aligned against you.

Isn't the answer patently obvious? Jim himself, as but one example. He spends weeks fabricating a premise upon which to try and discredit me. Note that I said me, not my ideas. He stole my idea, at least one of them. (Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Jim.) But again, this is yet another argument of distraction. That I can't name the forces is of no consequence. It's patently clear that they exist. Did we need to name gravity to observe it and understand it?

Late into the afternoon, another poster was trying to goad me into taking up this specious "debate". It doesn't end with Jim.

Jim twists my words over and over again. Here's another example of false reasoning, one a true scientist would never make.

I was asked a specific question about what I believed Noront's strategy was. My belief is that Noront wants to consolidate the RoF, and become the controlling entity of the assets. I've stated it in a number of different ways, but that's the gist of it.

However, it is quite another question altogether to ask me what my personal opinion is about the existing takeover offer. My expression of my belief about what I think Noront's strategy is, is not an endorsement of it. In fact, Jim attempted to dismiss my poll of board sentiment as being unscientific on the basis of the specific questions asked. And then he goes ahead and makes a worse mistake in the very same realm of content.

Now, back to my introductory comment. I've tried to post awareness-raising messages about logical fallacies, arguments of distraction, and all of that. I was predicting exactly what happened, I guess. These people, whoever they are, don't play fair. It's about money, after all.

For the moment, I must retire from the interaction here. As I told Jim, I'll be able when I am able. But Jim, I will not respond to you. I hope that much is clear. But please, do post your urgent messages.

Kind regards to all. I may be an ass at times, but I mean well.

Lar