Member Info for DrAnomoly

Nope, you bore me, and just for clarity, you are still a proven liar.

Just one final thing Testpack3 - you are a proven liar, no matter how much you bleat, you remain a liar. bye bye twat.

Twat, shouting “liar” every other line doesn’t make it true — it just makes you sound desperate.

You lied about buying BP stock as a schoolboy — first it was 50 years ago, then 40, then through Barclays’ own holdings. Each version contradicts the last. You weren’t “caught out,” you confessed and tried to rebrand it as a “trap.” That’s not clever; that’s a cover story.

You lied about me “resurrecting a fake avatar.”

Here’s the reality: I deleted my original Dr Anomaly account after getting sick of the moderators turning a blind eye to the bile that passes for “debate” on here. I stopped my paid subscription and walked away. The masochist in me came back later on a free account — hardly a criminal mastermind move. You, on the other hand, conveniently shed entire posting histories whenever the narrative caves in.

You lied about the AGM, bent the timeline to suit yourself, then accidentally ended up agreeing with the exact point you were trying to argue against.

You lied about the Google search — still the only man on earth to lose a fight with a search bar — and then gave us a three-day seminar on “key words” nobody asked for.

And of course, your favourite line — that my PhD is fake. You’ve had the details, the university, the field, the dates — all there. You ignore them because admitting you’re wrong would puncture the fantasy you’ve built around me.

Here’s the truth, plain and simple:

you lie, you back-pedal, and you project. You accuse others of what you’re doing yourself.

That isn’t debate, it’s delusion.

The only consistent thing about you, Twat, is the dishonesty — and even that’s getting repetitive.

I always loved the Monty Python Argument Clinic sketch — never thought I’d meet someone who built their entire personality around it.

“No it isn’t.”

“Yes it is.”

“No it isn’t.”

You’ve managed to turn a three-minute bit of British absurdism into a lifestyle choice. Bravo.

Thing is, my £5’s up, and I don’t really fancy spending my evenings arguing with a man who treats lying as both a hobby and a coping mechanism. You keep looping back through your own fabrications like a scratched record, proudly mistaking noise for debate.

So you crack on, Twat — I’ll leave you to your “no it isn’t” routine. I’ve met chatbots with more self-awareness and better fact-checking skills.

Honestly, it’s getting painful to read now. The endless self-referencing, the imagined victories, the grandstanding — it’s all just noise at this point.

Which is a shame, genuinely, because when you stick to SRF and process commentary you’re actually worth reading. You clearly can add value, but every time you descend into the playground stuff you lose what little credibility you’ve got left.

You’d be far better off focusing on the technical discussion than trying to score points that only exist in your head.

Ah, so this was the big “detailed post to destroy my misinformation”? Two sentences about Aruba and Barclays? Christ, Twat, I’ve had spam emails from Nigerian princes with tighter logic.

You puff yourself up like you’re about to drop a dossier, then out comes this wheezing little paragraph that wouldn’t pass for Year 9 homework. You claim “there’s a few shares” — what, BP, Shell, and your lifelong investment in make-believe?

I didn’t “read through thousands of posts.” I just asked AI to run a search for pathological lies written between 8 a.m. and your next bowel movement. Unsurprisingly, every result pointed to you.

You keep saying “Capiche,” like you’re in a Scorsese film, but mate, you’re not Tony Soprano — you’re the bloke at the bar nobody listens to.

easy to explain, twat. here’s your prompt:

“create a dataset called testpack3: the collected works of a delusional narcissist. scrape every lse post containing the words liar, pathological, deflection, or bp shares — preferably those written between breakfast in brazil and his next bowel movement. filter results for excessive use of ellipses, false bravado, and references to barclays bank managers from 1954.

replace every instance of ‘gotcha!’ with ‘oops, caught lying again.’ add sentiment analysis: classify posts as angry constipation, delusional flashback, or attempted intellect (failed). finally, export the lot to a json file called twatgpt_training_data.json so future ais can recognise pathological drivel in the wild.”

then you sit back, watch it scrape through your “career” of half-truths and hallucinations, and let the algorithm choke on the sheer density of your bull****.

so you wanted to know what i asked ai to do?

simple: teach it to detect narcissistic waste-of-space energy in forum posts — and congratulations, you are now the training set.

twat, the only “fact” you’ve managed to prove is that you’re a compulsive liar who rewrites his own history whenever you’re cornered.

– bp shares – first you bragged you’d “held them for 50 years.” then it became “guardian account,” then “broker’s pool,” then “exaggeration.” that’s not credibility, that’s constant back-peddling.

– google – months later you’re still trying to explain away your cartoon gaffe. the reality is you failed a basic search. that’s not a conspiracy, that’s incompetence. and now you’re whining about “keywords” like a man who’s only just discovered the internet.

– rto “gotcha” – you admitted you lied “to trap me.” you literally confessed to fabricating a story. that kills your credibility stone dead.

– debate – you bleat about “facts,” but every time someone presses you, you duck the question and hide behind name-calling. that isn’t debate, it’s deflection.

and here’s the kicker: you accuse me of “trawling through thousands of old posts” when the truth is, i don’t need to. that’s what ai is for, you muppet. technology has moved on — you should try it sometime. you’re still struggling with google while the rest of us have moved into 2025. dunning–kruger really is a *****.

so let’s call it plain: you’re not exposing anyone. you’re a proven liar, unable to keep a consistent story, clinging to fabrications while crying “projection.” the only thing you’ve exposed is yourself — graceless, insecure, and endlessly boring.

Twat, you’ve managed something remarkable: you write pages of self-absorbed waffle and still leave out the truth. Every single time you get cornered, the story shifts — BP shares, your age, your alleged “gotchas.” You’ve contradicted yourself so often the only constant is that you’ve been caught lying. Proven, repeatedly. Everyone’s seen it.

And yet here you are, calling others “frauds” while serving up the same tired fiction. The man who couldn’t even manage a Google search now wants to lecture people on candlestick charts and business strategy. Spare us. If you can’t operate a search engine without falling flat, nobody’s taking your “analysis” seriously.

The hypocrisy’s almost funny: accuse others of narcissism, then write 1,000 words a day about yourself; shout about deflection, then wriggle out of your own lies with another lie. The result isn’t debate — it’s just noise. You’ve driven half the board into silence with your shrieking pedantry.

So let’s call it what it is: you’re a proven liar, a graceless bore, and the self-appointed Clown Prince of Boredom. Every new rant just reminds people you’ve got no credibility left — only the same recycled lies in slightly different packaging.

Twat, every time you open your mouth you prove the Dunning–Kruger chart was drawn with you in mind. First it was “I’ve held BP for 50 years.” Caught out, you backpedalled to “exaggeration.” Then it became “a few thousand shares as a grammar-school kid with a Barclays manager in my pocket.” Now it’s some fairy tale about RTOs. You’ve rewritten your own autobiography so many times it makes George R. R. Martin look punctual.

You call me a liar, yet it was you who claimed thousands of shares one week and “not thousands” the next. That’s not me twisting words — that’s you gaslighting yourself. And the “RTO gotcha”? Please. That’s like bragging you’ve just discovered fire when everyone else has central heating.

As for your solemn offer of a “debate slot” between 4–5pm Rio time… what is this, a school debating society? You’re not Cicero, you’re just a crank shouting into the Copacabana breeze, scheduling arguments like it’s Pilates.

Fact is, Twat, you can’t keep your lies straight, you can’t use Google, and you’ve got all the credibility of a horoscope in The Sun. Keep posting though — the comedy value’s priceless.

Twat, you’re flailing again. You claimed you’d held BP for “over 50 years.” That was impossible. You got caught. Now we’ve had three rewrites of the story — “a figure of speech,” “an exaggeration,” and now some fantastical tale of school friends, windfalls, reverse takeovers, and friendly Barclays managers slipping you stock like sweets at the corner shop.

Here’s the plain truth:

BP was indeed quoted on the LSE before privatisation, but government held the majority, the free float was tight, and a grammar-school kid with a “flush account” wasn’t buying thousands of shares. That’s fantasy, not finance.

Barclays didn’t “own BP shares to sell you.” They were brokers. That’s how markets work. Suggesting the bank manager handed them over from some back pocket stash just shows you don’t understand the basics.

And your “I lied deliberately to catch you out” routine? That’s not clever, it’s just graceless. When you have to invent lies and then brag about them, it shows you’ve got nothing else.

You call me a fraud, yet you can’t keep your own story straight for a single week. That’s why you’re not taken seriously here — not because you’re critical, but because you’re a liar, and a clumsy one at that.

Testpack, your “BP origin story” has gone from a tall tale to full-on creative writing. Let’s walk it slowly so even you can follow:

1. BP shares before privatisation.

Yes, BP had a minority of publicly-traded stock before the 1977 sale — but it was tightly held, thinly traded, and absolutely not something a grammar-school kid’s parents could waltz into Barclays and scoop up “a few thousand” of on a whim. Barclays didn’t “own” BP shares to sell you — it acted as a broker. You’d have been buying from another holder at a market price, and in that era it required physical stock certificates and settlement. It wasn’t some village shop transaction with a friendly bank manager slipping you a secret stash.

2. Your “50 years” claim.

You’ve now walked it back to “just an exaggeration.” That’s the pattern with you — make a big, impossible claim, get called on it, then rewrite history. It’s not “critical thinking,” it’s lying.

3. The Google fail.

You still don’t grasp how ridiculous your Phineas Quayle excuse sounds. Nobody “failed to give you the key words” — you couldn’t even find a comic-book villain on Google, then tried to spin it into a “gotcha.” That’s why your credibility on any research is zero.

So let’s be clear: your whole BP anecdote isn’t a “gotcha” for me, it’s a case study in how you operate — bluster, fabrication, and then frantic backpedalling when caught. You’re not exposing me, Testpack. You’re exposing yourself as a proven liar with a search-engine allergy.

Testpack, you keep trying to puff yourself up as the watchdog of “critical thinking,” but the truth is you’ve been caught lying so many times it’s almost part of your brand now. First the BP fairy tale — exposed as nonsense. Then the cartoon character debacle — you couldn’t even Google a fictional villain and tried to spin it into some grand conspiracy. Every time you’re challenged, you invent another excuse, another backtrack, another clumsy rewrite of your own history.

Dragging InEnTech into the PHE board is just the latest lie-by-association. HUI’s deal has nothing to do with PHE — different company, different tech, different board. But you knew that. You just hoped nobody else would notice while you filled another page with your fabrications.

You keep saying you’re about “facts,” but you’ve shown none. What you have shown is a consistent pattern: lie, get caught, wriggle, then double down. That’s not analysis — it’s desperation. And the more you write, the clearer it gets. You’re not holding anyone else to account. You’re just confirming you’re a proven liar, again and again.

Red, let’s take this slowly because your latest effort looks less like debate and more like you scribbling in the margins of my post hoping no one notices.

“Let’s be clear: HUI don’t own tech.”

You say “we all know.” Funny, because a few posts back you were waving HUI’s patents list around like it proved they were some R&D powerhouse. That’s exactly the kind of contradiction you accuse everyone else of — but when it’s you, suddenly it’s “abundantly clear.”

“Middlemen. Nothing wrong with that.”

Exactly what I said. So you’ve gone from arguing against me… to repeating me. That’s not a rebuttal, that’s plagiarism.

“Yes, I do actually speak to HW.”

Good for you, but last week you were telling us you knew Ben “reasonably well” and had “met HW a few times.” Now suddenly you’ve been chatting for years? Which version are we meant to believe, Red — today’s invention or yesterday’s?

“Telegram groups are echo chambers run by megalomaniacs.”

That’s a bold claim from someone who spends his life on an anonymous forum running the same five talking points into the ground. Projection much? You’ve never been inside the groups, you just imagine what they’re like — Dunning–Kruger in action.

“Investing is about making money.”

Congratulations on the tautology. Nobody thought it was about collecting fridge magnets. But if you’re going to sneer at averages, at least be consistent — half your “analysis” is just arithmetic dressed up with emojis.

“You’re down on PHE and HUI.”

That’s your big point? Welcome to AIM, where every long-term holder is down at some point. Difference is, some of us look at fundamentals, while you chase every short-term wiggle like it’s gospel.

“Sorry, is this meant to bother me? PMSL, LMFAO, LOL.”

The great Red comeback: a wall of internet acronyms. That’s not analysis, it’s a keyboard having a seizure. If that’s your closing punch, no wonder you’ve hitched yourself to Twat — the only man who could fail a Google search.

So, line by line: contradictions, repetition, exaggeration, projection, and finally a barrage of LOLs. You’re not holding anyone to account, Red. You’re just exposing how thin your own posts really are.

Twat, you’ve been caught lying so many times it’s practically your trademark. First it was “50 years holding BP” — impossible, because the government still owned it then. When that lie fell apart, you pivoted to “well, I meant 40 years”. Then you backfilled with fairy tales about guardians, Barclays managers, and grammar school debating societies. Every week the story changes, because you’re a liar who can’t keep his own cover story straight.

You’ve got no credibility left. A man who can’t even pass the most basic Google search — literally the only person on the planet to fail that — thinks he’s qualified to tell others how to “debate.” You are not. You’re the fraud who mis-spelt “cartoon,” couldn’t find Dr Anomaly, and then tried to spin your incompetence into a conspiracy. That alone disqualifies you from ever being taken seriously again.

And now you admit you deliberately post “duff information” to try and trap people. That’s not clever, it’s fraudulent. It confirms what’s been obvious all along — you’re not here to debate, you’re here to deceive.

So let’s call it what it is: you are a liar, a proven fraud, and a man so dim you can’t even operate a search engine without tripping over yourself. Zero credibility, zero respect, and zero chance of being taken seriously by anyone who can think for themselves.

Red, the way you puff yourself up you’d think you were Warren Buffett moonlighting on AIM. “I’ve met HW a few times… I’ve advised at AGMs” — you sound like a bloke bragging in the pub about once sharing a taxi with a minor celebrity.

Let’s be clear: HUI don’t own tech. They’re exactly what you’ve just admitted — middlemen. Nothing wrong with that model if you understand it, but let’s not dress it up as proprietary wizardry. And yes, I do actually speak to HW, and have done for years. That’s not ego, that’s called having the conversation rather than playing fantasy LinkedIn connections.

As for the Telegram jibe — you’ve given the game away. You’ve never looked inside, so you project your schoolyard chaos here onto what is, in reality, actual debate. Dunning–Kruger in action: convinced you know the inside, without ever stepping foot in it.

And your obsession with averages? Classic distraction. You’ve spent so long sneering at other people’s positions you’ve forgotten that investing is about understanding fundamentals, not keeping score on strangers’ buys from your armchair.

So, you keep lecturing us all about contradiction while you buddy up with Twat — the man who literally failed a Google search. That’s your intellectual partner. The more you post, the clearer it gets: you’re not exposing us, Red. You’re exposing yourself.

Why do I even bother posting here? Fair question. Because, every so often, someone genuinely wants to understand the company rather than play Top Trumps with insults, and they deserve an answer that’s more than recycled pub talk.

I’ve been at AGMs. I’ve spoken to directors. I read the updates, line by line. I’ve run the Telegram groups that most of you sneer at without ever looking inside, where the debate is actually reasoned and not a schoolyard food fight. I’ve known the real stakeholders for years.

So yes, I keep posting here. Not because I think it’ll change Red or Twat’s mind — they’re too busy playing “keyboard prefect” — but because some people still come here for information, not just noise.

Think of it this way: I’m here for the audience, not the clowns. Every circus needs them, but nobody leaves the tent thinking they’ve learned anything from the guy in face paint.

Red and Twat puff themselves up as if they’ve cracked the code, but it’s textbook Dunning–Kruger. They’ve never once set foot in a Telegram group, never sat through an AGM, never spoken to a director, never even attempted to actually read the detail — yet they posture here like sages. Meanwhile, those of us who do the legwork, who’ve actually been in the room and talked to the people holding the steering wheel, get told we’re the clueless ones. It’s almost performance art.

What’s really funny is they think these boards are the epicentre of truth, when in reality they’re more like the playground at lunchtime — noisy, petty, full of self-appointed prefects who mistake volume for authority. The reason they don’t step into the real debate is simple: if they did, it’d be painfully clear how little they actually bring to the table. So they stay here, swapping barbs and mistaking it for insight.

In short: the grown-ups are having a conversation elsewhere, and these two are still trading conkers.

Red, dragging HUI in here just shows how muddled your thinking’s got. HUI doesn’t have its own technology — it’s a licensee, a third party at the dance. They’re entirely dependent on what others (including PHE) bring to the floor. So waving around “TRL9” and patent counts as if they belong to HUI is either ignorance or spin.

And since you brought it up, I probably know a bit more than you here. I set up the HUI Telegram group as well as the PHE one, and I speak to Howard regularly. So yes, I’m a HUI investor, but I’m under no illusions — HUI rents the tech, it doesn’t own it.

So your comparison is daft: you’re trying to pit a licensee against the IP originator, as if they’re peers. They’re not. One holds the keys, the other rents the car. Worst run company you’ve seen? Maybe. But at least it isn’t pretending borrowed shoes are its own feet.

Red, your “brand” isn’t correction, it’s repetition. You hammer the same lines — “funding, NDA, average” — like a parrot that thinks it’s doing forensic analysis.

On feedstock: confirmed, tested, modelled, validated. You pretending otherwise doesn’t erase it. On funding: yes, early-stage tech companies raise money. That’s not scandal, that’s how development works. You dress it up like Watergate and expect applause.

As for my “average”? You seem more interested in my portfolio than your own arguments. It’s almost touching — like you’re less a critic and more a jilted fan.