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!
""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.
" 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.
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:
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.
The proof of these claims lies with the quotes made by nomo. Every lie is rooted in a specific quote from nomo. For example, new and exciting proof for lie #1 is nomo's quote today that the FDA gave STSI time to get its house in orrder (insofar as making claims for Abloc) before taking any action to remove Abloc. A direct contradiction of his assertion that Abloc WILL be pulled.
The proof for lie #5 lies in the STSI chart itself. No further evidence required.
I'm about to add lie #7: "Anyone who understands technology [like nomo understands it] can identify the other aliases of any poster here on Yahoo. So, I've asked nomo to prove his assertion by telling us what other aliases I use (if any). If no answer, we have lie #7.
In order to post on iHub one has to "join" the board and subsequently pass muster with the moderator. That makes it less than a public board in my view. Any time anyone has control over the contents of a board makes it "private" in many peoples' eyes.
"nomo actually said something positive about star"
Even more newsworthy is that what he said directly contradicts his assertion that GNC WILL be pulled, no ifs ands or buts.
"Which store? I'll drive over and verify. I might buy a bottle if she is hot as you say she is."
I hope foresto45 does provide the identity of which GNC store he visited north of Houston. Since then nomo can drive over, not see the hot clerk since she doesn't work that day, and report back that none of what foresto45 said was true.
THAT is the kind of "truth" one gets from nomo.
"Obviously you do not understand technology, Chipper. You can indeed prove what IDs I have."
Then detail the process by which to do so. Saying it can be done is total BS without providing evidence that it can be done. In fact, I tell you what. Since YOU can indeed prove what IDs somehow has, then tell me what other IDs I use (if any). Surely you (who says he understands technology) can do this. I'll be waiting. Or else this will go down as yet another lie.
I don't believe your degree in math/stat because you refuse to tell us where you got your supposed degree from. Anyone can claim anything. Your POSTS, on the other hand, belie any knowledge of math/stat. Recall the post where at least 5 times I offered you the chance to prove your math worthiness using the Abloc monthly data, and determining whether one year's data were SIGNIFICANTLY different than the previous year's data? You never responded because you COULDN'T do the stat required (a simple F test).
As far as your marvelous regression goes, I recall two things which put it to shame: 1) you had the regression go through the X/Y intercept at 0 (bad assumption), and 2) it was based on a handful of roughly equivalent data points such that any child could draw a line through them and come up with the same result that my simple time series model came up: R(Quarter X) = R(Quarter X-1). It's not hard to fit a model or make predictions when the data are roughly constant. Hence the high R-squares for your 4 (or was it 6?) data-point regression and my time series model. The evidence of being a successful forecaster of anything is when you can do it with data containing high variability. The STSI data did not contain it.
So why did you fail to solve that rather simple statistical analysis of the two years of Abloc data? If you were someone with a math/stat degree you would have knocked it out of the park and shut me up on this subject forever. But you didn't. And so I won't. Name of college please......
What does looking at the charts in hindsight (and reporting on it) provide in value to this board? I don't recall you making many if any predictions using chart analysis in the past, particularly using the data points you reference. Correct my memory if it's wrong.
My point here is that anyone can look at any chart and pick out certain highs and lows and say "See! What a coincidence that X and Y happened!" Sorry, I'm just not seeing your point.
Numbers 5 and 6 have been added to the list. Even though the event of #5 occurred last year, the quote was from yesterday, hence a new lie. Number 6 is new as well. Still two days to go in January. Will the list grow any longer before the month ends?
#1: Abloc will be pulled from the shelves of GNC.
#2: Nomo and Chipper4747 had a $100 bet in spring 2013.
#3: Has a degree in statistics/mathematics.
#4: Fred Couples doesn't wear the Abloc insignia (sorry, this blast from the past is so obvious that I'm sure everyone remembers it).
#5: "History shows that I have been incredibly right on the share price direction. Both up and down."
[This latest lie is proven by the hilarious call by nomo that $1.90 was the top (in July 2013) based on his self-acclaimed expertise in TA. The stock didn't dip below $1.90 for good (recently, at least) until November, 2013 ---a full 4 months after nomo claimed the "top was in". Incredibly right? Nope, incredibly wrong for 4 months.]
#6: "And people like myself have no reason to hide and therefore no use for one [private board]"
[Nomo seems to have lost his memory about moderating a private board. There are plenty of witnesses, many of whom didn't like his moderation. Perhaps nomo could use some Abloc to help with the possible onset of Alzheimer's.]
"I can have a mutually agreed upon third party prove that my only ids are stsinomo and tivonomo via temporary access to my Yahoo account."
There is no way for ANYBODY to prove that you DON'T have some other IDs buried somewhere else where this 3rd party is not privy to. Do you not understand the fallacy of proving a negative? And here you said you have a college degree! LOL. You are the jokester, aren't you?
"History shows that I have been right on my regression work yet you suggest I have no degree (lie)."
YOU claimed to have a degree in statistics/mathematics. And I say you don't. All you have to do is tell us when/where you received whatever scientific degree you hold (which I know you don't). I will add this lie to the list as well.
"History shows that I have been incredibly right on the share price direction. Both up and down."
You were wrong for several weeks about "$1.90 being the top", when in fact it wasn't. Yet another revision of your history? Yes! I will add this one to the list as well. You'll see my updated list of lies in a post after this one.
"Why would I apologize for an opinion that I strongly believe in?"
Because it wasn't an OPINION, nomo. You were presenting it as FACT, and you know it. That is why you owe the board an apology.
The trading for the last 3 minutes went as follows:
3:58pm: $0.70 (high/low/close); on 1200 shares
3:59pm: Opened at $0.70, went as high as $0.75, closed at $0.74; on 115,974 shares
4:00pm: Open, high, low and closed all at $0.73; on 31,379 shares
4:01pm (afterhours): $0.74; on 1200 shares.
Is this manipulation? Don't know. Except that any smart investor could have bought STSI for $0.70 any time during the afternoon and have his stake increased by a few pennies as the session closed. You could be correct that the MM was accumulating shares for a large buyer, but that's his job!
Didn't read the article. Question: Did those democratic governors who took various goods report them as required by law? Or did they try and hide them (like McDonnell did)?
Also, I doubt any of those governors mentioned in the article had a quid pro quo in return for the favors. In McDonnell's case, the $50,000 rolex and other goodies were tied to the governor giving STSI/Abloc favored treatment (per published evidence). Please correct my assumption (if wrong) that the governors in the Times article did report their goodies and did not tie their goodies to preferential treatment.