Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 5:24 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 4 hrs 6 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

SunPower Corporation Message Board

chipper4747 87 posts  |  Last Activity: Apr 7, 2014 11:49 PM Member since: Jun 22, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 18, 2014 1:03 AM Flag

    I'm waiting for you to prove to me (and the board, for that matter) that you have only one ID.

    I'm waiting to collect my $100 bet that Abloc won't be pulled from GNC.

    I'm waiting to collect YOUR $100 bet that you didn't contradict yourself by use of the FDA giving STSI leeway on resolving the Abloc issues --- a direct contradiction that there is zero leeway on whether the product will be pulled.

    Now, you said you can prove that you have only one ID. Fire away, sherlock ..... I dying to see you prove a negative, which anyone schooled in basic logic knows is an absurd proposition. (And you want to bet $1000 on it?)

  • chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 17, 2014 2:33 AM Flag

    There you go again, nomo---- once again rewriting your history to comb over the bald spots on your lies, of which there are so many.

    My original $100 bet still stands. Your $1000 bet about having no other IDs and you are capable of proving it: utter nonsense. And here's my proof to you that you CAN'T prove it:

    No matter how many source IPs you claim to have on which there is only one ID, there is always the "next computer over", where you can have stored another of your IDs. And the only person that knows about it is you. Case closed.

    You owe me $100 for ABloc not being pulled from GNC, after stating it as FACT when you posted it. And no rewrite of that post will whitewash it.

    And now, once again, you owe me $1000 for your absurd claim that you can prove you have but one ID. In order for me to pay you $1000, you'd have to prove you don't. Be my guest .... go right ahead.

  • chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 14, 2014 8:58 PM Flag

    "You need to do more research on my posts. Or take an English as a second language course."

    nomo,
    So that's your defense? Ok, then research it will be. Here are the very quotes from you pertaining to this subject matter.

    1) (Posted on Jan 20, 2014 @ 2:41pm)

    [from Nomo]: "Everyone else understands that the reason I don't take the $100 bet is because you refuse to read it as written. You are not bet worthy."

    2) (Posted on Jan 31, 2014 @ 11:05am)

    [Quoting me from a post earlier that day]

    "Even more newsworthy is that what he said directly contradicts his assertion that GNC WILL be pulled, no ifs ands or buts."

    [Nomo's continues]

    "I bet you $100 that is a lie and factually incorrect."

    =====================================
    So there we have it, plain as day. Either I am "bet worthy" or I am not. Which one is it? The other statement becomes yet another lie.

    I don't need to take an English course to see the obvious contradictions in your writing. I think you need to take a LOGIC course, or better yet ...a course on how to live one's life without making it look like the poster boy for Contradictions R Us.

  • Reply to

    Analyst and Investor Meeting ~

    by a_brown3 Feb 14, 2014 10:12 AM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 14, 2014 8:40 PM Flag

    This is exactly the 180 degree turnabout that Star is executing under the new CEO. Anyone with an investment in Star or contemplating investment in Star must 'attend' this meeting one way or another. This is the best due diligence one can do.

  • Reply to

    Coming together - Naomi Whittel Resigns From Board

    by rick3568 Feb 14, 2014 5:16 PM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 14, 2014 8:32 PM Flag

    Rick,
    How should one interpret your thread headline: "Coming together..."?

    Thanks.

  • (A repeat of a post from a different thread)

    "Apparently asking a question is a lie with these fools like Izof and chipper."

    nomo-
    I'm glad you mentioned my name. Why? Well, because I'm still waiting for you to get down to business with our bets on whether Abloc will be pulled from the GNC shelves. You said it will be pulled. I bet you $100 that what you said was a lie. And I'm still willing to make that bet. And you declined, calling me "not trustworthy enough" to make a bet with. One of your usual personal attacks used as a defense mechanism.

    Then, a few days after that, I pointed out another one of your contradictions. In this case, your statement that the FDA was giving STSI time to correct the Abloc situation was, in fact, a direct contradiction of your claim that Abloc will be pulled. How is that a contradiction? Easy: if STSI is being allowed time to fix the problems, there's a possibility Abloc won't be pulled. This contradicts your claim that it will be pulled (and in fact, it helps to prove that your "will be pulled" statement is indeed a big fat lie). BUT...the big news here is that you wanted to bet ME $100 that my assertion of a contradiction is not true. And I accepted that bet as well, assuming that you would accept the first one. So, suddenly, chipper is now worthy of making a bet with. Now, if that isn't a mentally internal contradiction for your brain to deal with, nothing is.

    Externally, though, we now have lie #3: "chipper is (is not) trustworthy of a making a bet with". Choose one that you wish to believe. Then the other statement that you made is therefore a LIE. No backtracking, no rewriting of your statements will remove you from this one.

    You owe me $200. And, for the record, you are one big serial liar. And I do mean serial.

  • Reply to

    Is Fred Couples still a Brand Ambassador?

    by stsinomo Feb 13, 2014 12:58 PM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 14, 2014 1:12 AM Flag

    "Apparently asking a question is a lie with these fools like Izof and chipper."

    nomo-
    I'm glad you mentioned my name. Why? Well, because I'm still waiting for you to get down to business with our bets on whether Abloc will be pulled from the GNC shelves. You said it will be pulled. I bet you $100 that what you said was a lie. And I'm still willing to make that bet. And you declined, calling me "not trustworthy enough" to make a bet with. One of your usual personal attacks used as a defense mechanism.

    Then, a few days after that, I pointed out another one of your contradictions. In this case, your statement that the FDA was giving STSI time to correct the Abloc situation was, in fact, a direct contradiction of your claim that Abloc will be pulled. How is that a contradiction? Easy: if STSI is being allowed time to fix the problems, there's a possibility Abloc won't be pulled. This contradicts your claim that it will be pulled (and in fact, it helps to prove that your "will be pulled" statement is indeed a big fat lie). BUT...the big news here is that you wanted to bet ME $100 that my assertion of a contradiction is not true. And I accepted that bet as well, assuming that you would accept the first one. So, suddenly, chipper is now worthy of making a bet with. Now, if that isn't a mentally internal contradiction for your brain to deal with, nothing is.

    Externally, though, we now have lie #3: "chipper is (is not) trustworthy of a making a bet with". Choose one that you wish to believe. Then the other statement that you made is therefore a LIE. No backtracking, no rewriting of your statements will remove you from this one.

    You owe me $200. And, for the record, you are one big serial liar. I do mean serial.

  • Reply to

    Hold on Tight

    by stsinomo Feb 7, 2014 10:53 AM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 8, 2014 4:15 AM Flag

    "The bottom could fall out on a moment's notice."

    Very astute. The last we left our discourse (with you doing a disappearing act the last few days for the obvious reason), you had challenged me to a $100 bet, which I accepted on two conditions:

    1) You accept my previous $100 bet about Abloc not being pulled from the GNC shelves.
    2) You explain why I am now worthy of making a bet with, when previously you smeared me by saying I wasn't worthy of such a bet.

    And when you do accept both conditions, I will then point out why your statement about the FDA possibly
    allowing more time for STSI to get its Abloc act together (so as to not have its product pulled) clearly contradicts your "Abloc will be pulled" statement, the subject matter in our first $100 bet.

    I wonder what kind of personal attack you will use as a reply to this post, rather than concentrating on the matter at hand.

    All I expect from you, as a man, is that you stand by your statements, rather than trying to rewrite them into a different meaning than what was said. That tactic is for politicians, nomo. That doesn't become you, the smart guy that you are.

  • Reply to

    great post off ihub-couldn't agree more

    by rcpnfkb1 Feb 5, 2014 10:39 AM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 6, 2014 3:22 AM Flag

    " Catalysts coming up".

    Have been tempted with this siren song far too often to go out and spend money on it. Rather, I now
    prefer to sit back and wait for the first few of them to transpire. If that happens, I'm more inclined to add
    additional shares, knowing that I might be a bit late to the latest 'game'.

    Thanks for the report, whatever its source might be.

  • chipper4747 by chipper4747 Feb 5, 2014 5:08 AM Flag

    Here are some recent facts which nomo is trying to ignore:

    1) He stated as fact that Abloc will be pulled from GNC shelves. On weeks later did he try to backtrack and claim it was just an opinion. Sorry, bud, too late for that.

    2) I bet him $100 that Abloc will not get pulled.

    3) He claimed, among many things, that I am not bet-worthy, thus he was having none of it.

    4) Later he states that the FDA could allow STSI time to get its act together so that the product might not be pulled. I claimed this was a direct contradiction of his statement of fact that Abloc will be pulled, as he is now allowing for the possibility that Abloc might remain on shelves.

    5) He then declares that he wants to bet me $100 that I'm wrong (in #4).

    6) I said fine, but not before we bet on #1 first. And besides, I thought I wasn't worthy of making a bet with. What changed his mind? Yet another contradiction from nomo. I should add this one to the tab, but I'll let him skate on this just because I'm a nice guy.

    7) Given that he did directly contradict himself in #4, he now owes me $200.

    Where is nomo? Have his feelings been hurt?

  • Reply to

    Is Chipper really a short?

    by utswim2001 Feb 3, 2014 6:52 PM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 5, 2014 4:50 AM Flag

    Are you really an (*@)## hole? Yes to this question, and no to yours.

  • Reply to

    60 cents and the charts - chipper

    by rick3568 Feb 3, 2014 11:40 AM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 5, 2014 4:49 AM Flag

    "First off I made PLENTY of predictions that I thought the price was going lower. Im sure you remember that. I did not often (though sometimes I did) give the chart reasons because I thought the fundamental reasons for a decline were enough."

    Thanks, Rick --- you answered my question: namely, that you DIDN'T use chart analysis in a public way to make predictions. Oh sure, behind everybody's back you used it (as do I).

    My point was, and still is, that I found it odd that you were back-forecasting with charts AFTER an event (lower stock prices) had occurred. That is an "I told you so" moment without any validity to it. As I said, anybody can do it. And yes, for the record, you have used fundamental reasons for predicting lower prices. But that had nothing to do with using charts.

    If you're going to come across as somebody who predicts with charts, then do so beforehand, not afterwards.

  • chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 5, 2014 4:40 AM Flag

    "Ha. Looks like Izof and Chippy got their feelings hurt."

    Wow, ever the misplaced ego on display. Do you think that my not posting for a period of 36-48 hours meant that my "feelings got hurt"? I wonder if you considered what happened in the last 36-48 hours that might have contributed to one's absence from posting. Any ideas nomo? Or are you just plain always out to lunch?

    Suffice it to say that you do not have the capability --- by anything you write --- to "hurt my feelings". Geesus, I'm a grown man with a family. Only they have the capability to inflict emotional pain. You continue to be an embarrassment to yourself.

  • chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 5, 2014 4:32 AM Flag

    "Yet longs have been focused on distractions like Chipper's analysis of order numbers and longs misinterpreting studies."

    An unprovable statement. My analysis of order numbers FORECASTED the decline in Abloc sales. Where were you all that time? Anyone who paid attention got an early warning shot.

  • Reply to

    Advice: Any Longs Left?

    by rg782 Feb 3, 2014 10:01 PM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 5, 2014 4:29 AM Flag

    Some very honest and intelligent posts in this thread. Two I gave thumbs up to are those from pablo and thetruth, both of which mirror my views.

    What's explicitly lacking in this thread is the notion of whether one's STSI thesis is still valid. If so, stay in. If not, recalculate position. As others have mentioned my thesis for STSI includes "the science", which for me has not been proven invalid. Since the product does work for me, I believe that science has a job to determine why it works for me, and then publish that discovery far and wide.

    Thanks to all those who have written on this subject. I know it must be tough for many.

  • Reply to

    Ive been booted

    by rick3568 Jan 28, 2014 7:12 PM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 1, 2014 2:46 AM Flag

    Here's a good one folks.

    1) Nomo calls me an IDIOT (caps are his).
    2) Nomo says iHub is not much different than Yahoo except trash and PERSONAL ATTACKS are cleaned up there (caps are mine).
    3) Nomo then says that I wouldn't like that much! ... when in fact it's his #$%$ who would get booted for the behavior he exhibits on this board.

    Thanks for yet another laugh!

  • Reply to

    Slate Hit Piece

    by crooked_analyst Jan 30, 2014 11:31 AM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 1, 2014 2:37 AM Flag

    ""Even more newsworthy is that what he said directly contradicts his assertion that GNC WILL be pulled, no ifs ands or buts."

    I bet you $100 that is a lie and factually incorrect."

    OK, deal. But only after you accept my first $100 bet about the accuracy of your statement that "Abloc will be pulled." With no indication that it was an opinion, but presented as fact.

    And so, once you accept that bet, then we have this second bet, which is directly related to the first. Here's why I win this second bet:

    1) You stated previous that Abloc will be pulled from GNC.

    2) Everyone knows I bet you $100 that isn't true; that I was standing by my OPINION while you weren't even willing to stand by your "FACT"; and that I called you out as a coward for not willing to stand.

    3) You declined to bet me, resorting to your usual tactic of name-calling whereby I was labeled as someone who isn't "bet worthy", to coin a phrase.

    4) Now you WANT to bet me $100 for my statement above. First explain why I am NOW worthy of making a $100 bet with, when I wasn't before? That is yet another contradiction of your own statements. (See a pattern here?)

    5) I now claim that your statement "the FDA gave them an extension to respond" directly contradicts your "Abloc will be pulled" statement. The former opens a window for STSI to comply, which in turn implies the product stays on the shelves; the latter is a fait accompli. The two contradict one another.

    6) You now owe me $200.

  • chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 1, 2014 2:24 AM Flag

    " I already said that I would give a third party permission to review my account. And that person can verify the accounts that I use."

    Nomo, if calling me an "idiot" is all you got as a comeback against the obvious lies you tell, then I have to thank you for making my day. Attacking the messenger is the guilty man's response when he knows that facts are not on his side. Call me "idiot" all you like --- it just verifies your guilt each time you do.

    As for this "third party permission to review your account", I have two questions for you:

    1) Which account? The one you'll show him as being the ONLY account you have? Or your other accounts that you will keep hidden from him? As you can see ---- once again --- there is no way to prove a negative.

    2) But wait! You said there is a way ---- if only I were smart enough to "understand technology" and do it myself. But for some reason you haven't demonstrated that ability to find out which account(s) I use. This is becoming more and more a lie until you demonstrate what you said could be done. I haven't seen it yet.

  • Reply to

    Hit Pieces Continue

    by suprafine119 Jan 31, 2014 11:15 AM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 1, 2014 2:18 AM Flag

    Let's look at the "facts" as represented by you, Moss"

    1." The tobacco settlement did not come close to matching the hype." That is true on the face of it, but many investors in STSI never entered the stock due to any tobacco settlement. For them (and me) it is irrelevant. There were many 'momo' players in the stock for this reason, and they left immediately after it became clear there would be no settlement. Since then (several years now), it's all about the science of Abloc/anatabine.

    2. "The study results were disappointing." I will challenge you on this one, especially given the typical short characterization of the argument. The one study (thyroiditis) I focus on showed promise, enough so that future studies are warranted to determine the long-term impact of Abloc on reduction of the disease symptoms. Not 100% conclusive on the first go-round, but not disappointing either. That would be a short argument.

    3. "The company is trading below $1 and could be delisted". True, but before delisting arrives the company will execute either a reverse split (very ugly outcome from those) or a merger. Funny how you didn't mention that prospect. Neither I nor you know what is around the corner on this matter, but you only presented the one outcome (delisting) that is most likely NOT to happen.

    4. "The company needs cash." Fact. Tell us how much they need, and when do they need it? That would be helpful (and truthful).

    5. "The FDA has told STSI that they need to change the way they do things in a letter that was serious enough for an assistant professor at Harvard to suggest in the Washington Post that the product could get pulled off the shelves." Fact, although I have to smile at your use of the word "could", which is accurate to a point. Shorts were using the word "WILL", as if this outcome had a 100% probability of occurrence. Now they use "could", without indicating any sort of likelihood it will happen. My take:

  • Reply to

    13G SEC Filing -- Blackrock

    by uptick77777 Jan 30, 2014 7:15 PM
    chipper4747 chipper4747 Feb 1, 2014 1:50 AM Flag

    Moss,
    Having credibility in one area (price prediction) does not automatically qualify you for credibility in another area (share ownership by funds). In this case, your comment about the Russell 3000 is true in that the fund exists, and it owns STSI. But this thread is discussing whether the a particular hedge fund MUST own STSI due to some rule. And the answer is "no", unless the particular fund is modeled after the Russell 3000, which Blackrock is not. There is no rule that I know of that mandates that a hedge fund own over 5% of any company's stock.

    You have to admit that the fund is taking a position that is contrary to yours.

SPWR
39.03+0.19(+0.49%)Jul 22 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.