RE: Still waffling away4 Apr 2022 12:20
Trading for huge losses
"How else would you read that other than an endorsement of advfn"
As i stated, i have NEVER mentioned or promoted Advfn. Yet you clearly allege otherwise = you lie.
Wheres your evidence sonshine? All you do is try and deflect with insults after being proved wrong once again. For your information and guidance, There are many many other places to research other than than that cesspit of vulgarity, you should cast your net wider my insulting friend. Plenty of opinion sites/forums out there, not just lse and advfn. Google is your friend.
"I also tried to click on a thread and it brought up the membership screen. How would you interpret that?"
You didnt try hard enough. The membership filter is easily bypassed with a little effort, im no member there (more idiots on there than on here, youd fit in actually) but can easily accomplish circumventing the member requirement. Its not hard, try again. You will find most of these 'open source' type of platforms can be found via google simple enough.
"Now you accuse me of lying repeatedly. Let's see you prove it. "
I just did.
Where you accused me of promoting Advfn, when i NEVER have. I asked you for proof of your lie and you havent provided any = your a liar. Try and Deflect, as you just did, all you like, its a FACT.
"Show me one post where I have said the sp is going to xxx. You can't because they don't exist".
Where have i said you have stated an SP?
I HAVENT have I.
Fancy providing some proof of your delusional accusation that i have suggested this. Good luck with that = more deflection.
As an aside, why are you so reluctsnt to 'nail your flag to a mast'? it is strange. You must have a target price surely, or are you so unconfident (i dont blame you after the drop back from £4) in your ability to suggest one
"I could show dozens where the negative clowns like you have talked about 50p,30p,etc."
I prefer the term of 'more realistic' to your erronous insults. Afterall, the price has declined down from over £4 to 63p i understand. Which is a lot closer to the 50/30p figures you state others, not I (unless you want to try and prove otherwise) have stated. So the reality is those "clowns" were pretty accurate, and at least they had the balls to state a figure when you do not.
I beleive i mentioned 85p once - and i was RIGHT, it got there, didnt it?
"You don't bring your cloud of negativity and personality vacuum here for weeks and how do you open your post. With reference to a turd!"
I never mentioned you by name Trading for losses, but i can see why you thought i did and replied so promptly with your ill constructed responses. Given the word i used. It would be an easy mistake to make to assume i was talking to you.
"Now one of us is an agenda driven liar. The other is invested here."
I have no agenda, other than to provide balance to your ramping nonsense and insults. And clearly ive told no lies, thats proven above, twice..