Member Info for Bfdinvestor

Took me a while to realise as well Southcoast.

The guy had nothing to add but the post count was massively down, so it became obvious and his page has gone.

I'm sure he will be back at some point

Offensive name calling?

Do you therefore believe that the two banned posters (one from this board, the other from the site entirely) were offensive Spidey?

Because they were the only names I referenced.

Excellent spiky, even more twisting

I guess that is enough back tracking from you for one evening

Spiky I pasted what you posted, everyone can read the context.

But let's summarise it.

1. EUA have no money.

2. Trading whilst insolvent is criminal.

Link 1 &2 together.

Are you capable of doing that spiky

Now it seems you even lack the courage of your convictions.

So I'll ask again, do you believe EUA are trading whilst insolvent and have therefore deliberately mislead the market with the stated reason for suspension.

Yes or no will suffice spiky

Still here Spidey and unable to back up anything you say.

How can any opinion of yours about another poster's portfolio ever be fact.

Please atleast turn on spell checker, you are starting to look as illiterate as daytroll or Coltseevers.

Whatever happened to those two?

Spiky it does seem that you are an angry little man

So angry that your vision is so clouded that you are unable to answer two simple little yes or no questions.

So I can only surmise that your earlier posts about trading whilst insolvent were simply more of the usual fud and you don't believe that to be the case.

In which case, why did you bother to try to create the link if it is so transparently easy to disprove

So spiky, let's keep it really simple

Do you genuinely believe EUA are trading whilst insolvent and are either deliberately misleading the market. If you believe this to be the case, are the auditors and Nomad in collusion or simply incompetent.

Two simple yes or no's will suffice.

Although I guess that is beyond you

Soz, to clarify, wrongful trading (while insolvent) would be a very serious but civil offence if only inadvertent, but a criminal offence if there was an intentional element to defraud creditors (or, i think, if considered recklessly negligent in doing so?).

So you didn't post the above spikeyj?

And pls don't try to say it was only contextual, your meaning is totally clear from your posts

Lenoman couldn't agree more

Apparently TW is a poster boy for Colgate and Spiky is a wizz at playing twister

Spikeyj

You have posted multiple times that EUA are trading whilst insolvent.

For that to be the case, the three statements I posted would have to be true.

Do you think all three of those statements are incorrect?

Or are you now saying that you no longer believe what you posted

Del that is true

However I very much doubt the accountants were involved in the actual sign off of the RNS

They would have agreed the reason for the suspension though

Lloyd, ref post 15.07, that's a great point. It could be a coincidence but I doubt it.

A lot of businesses don't want non execs to be too heavily invested as it can cloud their supposed independent status

Spikeyj, you do live down to your name don't you?

Such an angry little man, must be why you take supposed enjoyment in trying to prove other people are losing money. Why do it?

Anyway let's return to your libellous posting. So you are saying

1. The BoD here have consciously lies to the auditors and the Nomad.

2. The auditors and nomad are either incompetent or in collusion with the BoD in misleading the market.

3. The auditors are so incompetent that they can't read a simple bank account.

All of those three statements would need to be true for your libellous comment to be correct.

Alternatively, you and Tommy no teeth could be making stuff up.

Which, let's be honest, wouldn't be the first time

Absolutely comical

You supposedly ask around about two shares you won't invest in and post nowhere else.

So just to confirm again Spidey you have nothing to back up what you say on a share where you have no investment

Reardon undoubtedly Shein has taken market share over the past couple of years.

Spidey posted something totally different, which as usual he can't back up.

Per normal, he tries to evade by posing other questions which he knows nobody will answer

After all, why would anybody take the time to respond to a troll when they know the troll never has the manners to respond in good faith

More evasion Spidey, so let's assume you have nothing to back up your claim of market dominance.

Why keep posting stupid lies where you have no investment?

Nope, that depends if you see a partial explanation as a positive or a negative.

I also go by the theory that I could be wrong and Occam's razor is correct

What dominance are you referring to Spidey, perhaps you could post some relevant market information to justify what you say.

Some people wearing some Shein clothes at a festival sponsored by Shein doesn't really cut it!

Otherwise you are just posting the usual garbage on a share where you have zero investment.

Truthfactory, I don't think I have ever seen more of a misnomer.

Why do you assume anybody "followed" Tilly etc? Anybody who invests on that basis deserves to lose their money.

This had a billion or so valuation over four years ago. So the biggest fools to me are people who have wasted the best part of half a decade posting on a share where they have no investment.

Here 's a question on bulletin board psychology for you.

If you believe a business to be worthless, then it follows that that is how you also value your time and by extension your own persona.

Doesn't say much for the kind of people you and the other trolls are does it Truthfactory.

Pls feel free to put that in your supposed book

Dattabase, agree we need some Comms.

As I've posted a couple of times, I'm not convinced by the reason given for suspension.

We need some clarity.