I'd love for someone here (smarter than I am) to publicly address these concerns. Some of these seem like valid points. Some do are reaching, IMO. I have deleted everything personal and left only the ZEN-related parts of the post. No disprespect intended. Just trying to understand the issues, and hear from both sides. Thank you.

(Yes, this is my first post. This seems like the best site to get a positive spin on things. I've seen plenty of negative spin elsewhere.)

_______

The consistent selective release of information has made it impossible to determine whether I should be bullish or not for certain periods of time.

I am finding statements that even Chahar is making very disturbing. This guy is a Doctorate and makes a statement that there are NO metals in ZEN graphite, without a standard disclaimer, ie ppm's or the word measurable etc.

AE continues to milk NDA's as if they have significance, when they do not. He discloses what he feels is important and for some unknown reason the BoD agrees with him? Any missing data is just dismissed as being hush hush stuff by even people on TCC that own the stock. So up to 92.5% is Ok statement for reasons I cannot explain.

Any info that leans toward flow sheet issues is pooh-poohed by anyone in the stock.

People on SH still refer to designer as if SGS does it, and they do not, so any point made regarding this topic, people just ignore.

Chicken and egg. I know the graphite was battery flake size in 2013 it states it in the crystallinity report. However, believers want to believe that this is the "first designer out of SGS", no matter what I or anyone says.

Some people realize something is wrong when a company misses a PEA date by a year, others interpret that as "refining and making things better". I could buy that if the companies initial plans were to do nothing but flow sheet issues, till it was absolutely everything to everybody, but that changed right after the AGM and was not the original plan.

No one seems to be bothered with inconsistencies in data and/or missing data. Flotation was 46-80% then suddenly the japanese and AGM diagram showed 80-90% then in the recent release the flotation was 78% which now is replaced with "up to 92.5%. So a bull would say, obviously the low number is 80 to which I would respond if the low number was 80 how do you get an average of78% out of that?

So none of these numbers work for me, there has been two NRs, one for 46-80% and another for "up to 92.5%". Yet I am one of the few, that is concerned about things like this. The bulls somehow dismiss these errors as being not needed, or covered by an NDA? So somehow, the holders can justify the release of a number like "up to 92.5%" as okay because the lower number may be mysteriously covered by an NDA??

If I am jamming crap into a coin cell, I would like to know it before it gets this far. You may say, why would they do it? To which I reply, what if thats all they have? What if the best is not gold enough? With dsta you MAY be able to discern it early. Without, you wait for Chahar's stated tests that need to be done.

What if they fail? Do you feel 100% sure you will be informed, or will AE just conjure up another batch, push it into another coin cell and have the tests redone?
After all, it was an experimental trial, right? So lets just run another and another? The trouble with that is, NO PEA while you are doing it. You may say Okay, I can wait. I say, if thats the plan, post the plan so people now waiting for a PEA know that it's not comin!

_____