Looking back through last week's posts I see that it suited zake1, junkbond13, terry_insm and blueyedcatch to suggest dishonesty on my part.
None of these lowlifes can point to a single example of an attempt to deceive in the approximately ten thousand posts I've made in this forum.
Apart from extremely rare exceptions I've only ever used the following ids in this forum -
I've occasionally forgotten to switch from the default id before posting. A few times recently I posted under an id I was using to promote awareness of Insmed within the wider investment community, the first time unintentionally.
No other id regularly used in this forum belongs to me. Read_this_now was not mine. Michael_Coen is not mine.
It should be obvious to anybody of average intelligence that a reasoned argument supported by relevant information doesn't need to be "propped up". By contrast, it's no surprise that the lowlifes who seek to influence investors by posting opinions which are just wishful thinking unsupported by reasoned argument do use multiple ids in the hope of filling the credibility void.
Those of you who have taken a dislike to me should face up to a simple fact - I have as much right to question unsupported opinions as others have to offer unsupported opinions.
You can't deny that you have no good reason to suggest dishonesty on my part. Your need to lessen my credibility in the eyes of others offers a self-improvement opportunity for those of you sufficiently mature to welcome such opportunities.
As I recall, you spent YEARS posting information that supported a positive outlook for this stock. Recently, with the latest offering (for the first time I can recall) you turned negative. I suppose it's reasonable to guess that your posting sentiment reflects your trading position.
My questions would be ..... which side are you on now? Are you paid to post?
Perhaps you should consider the concept that somewhere among the myriad of individuals who use this forum there are a small number of private shareholders whose posts are not swayed by the interests of others and are simply reflecting views honestly held.
If you can somehow manage to grasp that concept, perhaps you can also consider the possibility that I am one such individual, that I have always reflected a view of the potential of the investment which I still hold, and that my view of the insider trading which set up the price of the recent offering is not inconsistent with my view of the potential of the investment.
Let me know if you can manage any of that - or if you are simply incapable of appreciating the distinction between what you either perceive or choose to misrepresent as as two contradictory stances.
Don't waste your time looking for ways to trip me up on what I've just said. That's always a big ask when you're having to work with the truth.
Perhaps it never sunk in with me.....but apenny4em was your moniker? I suppose I will leave others to come up with their own adjective for your "unintentional" or intentional posting, but the term "disingenuous" works for me.
I created the first fudfighter account after my original account - apenny4em - was deleted for TOS violation.
I can only guess that the alleged violation was keeping posts near the top of the board which focused attention on the potential of the investment.
I have never attempted to conceal the fact that apenny4em was my first id. Nor can I see any reason for me to have wanted to do so. I assumed most Longs would have immediately recognised my style of posting - if not the fact that so much of the early content of the posts under the new id was reinstatement of information lost with the removal of the original account.
What precisely have I done which has met with your disapproval?