Member Info for bluerill

Turgid Simp In-need-of Constant Affirmation (but in) Reverse

Reality Altering Character Implicated in Subverting the Truth. just sayin'

On a completely unrelated subject however, I did just finish a paper that studies the pathology of people who would adopt wildly ****** personas on-line often in pursuit of malign, petty goals like trying to wind-up imaginary enemies who otherwise are simply pushing back on 'his' transparent attempts to spread misinformation and hate. Apparently, the paper concludes, they're ****s.

Gosh Alaric, I hope you won't shoot the messenger, but I think that study was in last month's issue

That is so funny. I was wiping my *ss with the same issue just the other day and I came across that very article. Seems the only trait more profoundly hard-wired than the 'shoot the messenger' instinct in humans, is the 'vomit in your mouth' need in trolls

Intellectually inferior? Likely, but ethically so, for sure. Anyway, back to something relevant: for the record, having written one dopey thing previously, doesn't miraculously inoculate you against the very fair charge of aggravated yammering later on. You don't know what you don't know, and yet, as always, you try to just power your way through the most innuendo-laden narrative possible no matter the number of disreputable and/or completely discredited sources, child-like analysis, or outright, baseless assertions you choose to rely upon. Do better and then we can discuss how you might raise your standard intellectually.

Hugely successful hedge fund managers don't end up with nicknames like 'The Rottweiler' - that are meant to FLATTERING - by 'aggressively doubling down' on losing causes, you yammering muppet. They cut their loses, often at the expense of long-term relationships and/or agreements; ergo, they end up with monikers like 'The Rottweiler'. I see the fullness of time has done little to diminish your willingness to cough up fur balls in aid of trying to supporting some imagined level of authority.

Hopefully alaric, shareholders here will remember just how many times nonsense stories have been corruptly pushed out into already deeply compromised Nigerian 'media', almost immediately reprinted by the callasjunkie-blackswan-etc cabal as if they were from the front page of the New York Times, de-bunked within hours but never, ever apologised for. If not, check the receipts.

In fact, the Company will report last year's results, which should have no surprises, and then unveil the new CEO's strategy going forward which will likely leverage its pristine balance sheet and thus include a simplified capital structure and then a promising outlook on the back of the recent big Cyber contract win and rollout progress of the transformational Edgility-Cityfibre order, which I expect will drive the sp out of this miserable range, and significantly higher. What's more, once those results are published, the Company should finally be out of this latest closed period and the buyback can resume. Adding at these illiquidity-driven levels seems downright prudent frankly.

Looks like the buying/buyer originated out of Israel today, which is encouraging as it indicates Moti's early outreach to institutions over there where professional money has traditionally been lukewarm to the Company.

Lombard are done

no. The small cap market is littered with decent names that have seen their sp's suffer nearly as badly as BOOM in the last couple of years, and little more than a handful of those have had even the tiniest bit of insider buying at all. Tobin's consistent supportive buying over time, puts BOOM in the top decile of smaller cap companies on that factor at least.

The Company has more than enough cash already. The significant balance of probability therefore favours the bulk of the settlement funds will come back to shareholders, though as I've shared now several times, much more likely in the form of a tender than a special dividend.

Listen up. The share price is telling you LOAM are finished selling. That's all you need to know.

'...I never said I was legally qualified...' Well, that's certainly a relief 'cause I never thought that you were.....or financially certified, especially clarified, nor particularly dignified, though clearly vilified, since you're obviously petrified that your bumbling today might confirm you're just stupefied.

one problem: you didn't make a single legal point here today. Not one. What you DID manage to do however, was make wild, unsubstantiated assertions and then CLAIM some kind of legal-adjacent 'experience' as a justification for those assertions. I think that's what real lawyers call hearsay and real shareholders refer to as dumbf*ckery. Good work.

What positively Trumpian-level projection, gigawhatever. Given your vast legal training, you must surely be aware that it was YOU who made the baseless assertion, not I, and therefore its you again (uh oh) that necessarily is obligated (assuming of course that you aren't an utterly shameless phoney with an agenda) to provide evidence of his claims. In other words, unless and until you show in ANY of the Company's public disclosures that lends even the most circumstantial credence to the idea that management has or is, in any conceivable way, where they were either forced by circumstance or coerced by any of their advisors, to accept a settlement that would or even might leave the Company with little or nothing after say, a misunderstanding of the extent of the funder's success fees. You didn't because you can't and yet you make such an assertion as if it were gospel. And it is I who have some kind of burden of proof before I am able to call you what you clearly are. Ok, then, here's my worksheet: you don't even have circumstantial evidence of your claim(s), yet you make them as if they are beyond debate and even though you are clearly smart enough to understand full well your mendacity, I must therefore conclude, counsellor, that you have done this intentionally and thus - Q.E.D.! - you must have an agenda to malign and misinform. Where's your worksheet by the way?

And as a side-note: if you're going to play pretend lawyer on an anonymous message board, i suggest you try and channel all your available resources into supporting that image. Trying to be 'funny' as well (a limp pun on the word fallacious in aid of trying to suggest I don't get enough sex? really?) is just going to put way too much strain on the engine room, Scotty.

rant?!?? Calling you a shameless fraud might have been rant-like. If I had wasted everyone's time here who is a rational and reasonable. to point out how utterly, contemptibly ahistorical that assertion was - ie, that somehow, in some parallel universe, after all this time and effort, that Nano management could or would ever accept any kind of settlement with Samsung without first, second and third considering fully the fact that they have legal fees to pay, that somehow they could be caught off guard(!) by the funder's success fee and have painted themselves into some kind of legal corner as a result - then maybe you might have cause to accuse me of having a go. As it was, I reckon I was pretty restrained . You, on the other hand are precisely the opposite: you fancy that by presenting dangerous misinformation in a measured tone, that allows you to present as prudent and reasonable. I think it makes you seem even more of a slimeball, frankly.

'.....Both sides see sense and agree a sum towards the low end of estimates but the lawyers still have to get paid for a much bigger case than was found to be justified in the event. This problem is exacerbated because of the large success fees Nanaco had to commit to to fund their case.....' That is, without a doubt, the most profoundly fallacious argument presented in a 'quick recap' as if it were in fact self-evident, that I think I have ever read, ever, never mind on this message board. You 'hope it helps.'?!?!?. Not in the way you think it does, mate.