Member Info for DrAnomoly

Twat — you’ve really outdone yourself this time. An entire essay lifted from DC Wiki, sprinkled with podcast gossip, like that proves anything. You honestly think quoting multiverse footnotes is some kind of ‘gotcha’? It just underlines what everyone knows — you failed the Google test, then panicked and went full Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons.

And the beard crack? Please. A beard doesn’t make someone a geek, but spending your evenings regurgitating DC lore on a share board definitely does. If anyone here is the tragic fanboy hiding behind trivia to feel clever, it’s you.

So no, you haven’t spoiled my day. The only thing you’ve spoiled is any hope of being taken seriously. You’re not the Joker, you’re not Lex Luthor — you’re the background NPC who thinks quoting Wikipedia makes him the main character.

Red — you trying the moral high ground is laughable. You spend every day deramping PHE into the floor, then suddenly you’re the oracle of AIM because you spotted £40k in trades? Daily volumes don’t prove or disprove anything — they bounce on liquidity, sentiment, and whether a couple of punters were awake. Using that as a stick to beat the share with is weak.

And yes, some AIM stocks spike 300% on news — they also crater 80% the week after. Volatility isn’t insight, it’s just volatility. Dressing it up like gospel only makes you look daft.

The crypto sermon was the cherry on top. When the best you’ve got is ‘I put money into SOL and ETH’, it doesn’t make you Warren Buffett — it makes you sound like a bloke in the pub trying to impress the table with yesterday’s bets.

As for hypocrisy — you calling anyone childish while you run in tandem with Twat (the man who literally failed a Google search) is the funniest thing on this board. That’s your intellectual partner, Red. No high ground there — just noise.

Red — Robin, Rodney, Batman, Delboy… what next, Muttley and Dick Dastardly? You’re so desperate for a punchline you’ve turned into the forum’s amateur panto writer. If you think that lands, it just makes you look like the warm-up act to Twat’s Google failure.

The RNS today was clear enough: FTU results better than modelled. That’s the headline. Legal hedging like ‘once fully commissioned’ doesn’t erase it, it just keeps the lawyers happy. You and Twat cling to boilerplate phrasing as if you’ve found Watergate; the rest of us can read plain English.

And your ‘£40k in trades = proof it’s not great’ line? Please. Daily volumes on AIM are noise. Pretending it’s deep analysis is like reading tea leaves in a Wetherspoons mug.

As for financials: they’re what you’d expect from an R&D stage. Cash burn, yes. Dilution risk, yes. Shocking revelation? No. If you think pointing out the obvious is analysis, you’re in the same boat as Twat — long on words, short on insight.

Twat — only you could take an RNS confirming the FTU is performing better than modelled and somehow twist it into a scandal about boilerplate disclaimers. ‘Forward-looking statements’ appear on every single RNS ever issued; it isn’t a smoking gun, it’s just standard legal housekeeping. Pretending you’ve cracked some code makes you look ridiculous.

And that Pinocchio quip? Weak. If anyone’s nose is sprouting, it’s yours — long enough to trip over every time you post. You’ve lied about AGMs, lied about NDA’s, lied about Google of all things. By your own logic, you’d need a crane operator just to get through the door.

At least Karoline Leavitt gets paid to spin; you do it for free and badly. And don’t forget: you failed the Google test. You couldn’t find a fictional villain. That’s your legacy here, Twat. Every attempt at wit just makes it sadder.

Red, you’ve managed to type another essay that says exactly what your last three essays said: ‘once fully commissioned’ — as if repeating boilerplate RNS wording is some kind of revelation. Six months later, you still think you’ve uncovered corporate Rosetta Stone. You haven’t.

NDA’s? Don’t play coy. Of course customers don’t hand over their waste profiles without commercial confidentiality. Pretending otherwise is either naïve or dishonest. Given you’ve hitched yourself to Twat — the man who couldn’t even Google a comic villain — I’ll let everyone else decide which.

Funding? You’re not uncovering a scandal, you’re stating the obvious. Small-cap tech raises cash as it scales. It’s been that way since AIM existed. Acting like you’ve cracked the case by pointing at the balance sheet is about as forensic as shouting ‘fire burns.’

And spare me the “facts vs insults” lecture. Your entire routine is childish digs, strawmen, and LOL spam. You don’t debate; you repeat the same line in black and white until even your new pal Twat stops pretending to clap.

So no, Red, I don’t owe you a CFO’s forecast. What I do owe you is a reminder: your big partnership is with the only man alive who failed Google. That’s your intellectual bedrock. Everything else you post is just noise.

Twat, reposting your own rant doesn’t make it sharper — it just means yesterday’s nonsense has been reheated. Nobody needed it the first time.

Your ‘downloaded version of Google’? That’s your excuse now? You can’t even use a search engine properly and yet you think anyone should treat you as the oracle of AIM. You failed the most basic test — finding a fictional villain — and you’ll never live it down. End of credibility.

Castle bans, narcissism, Karoline Leavitt — you’re throwing spaghetti at the wall hoping something sticks. It doesn’t. All it shows is how desperate you are to distract from the fact you got humiliated on a cartoon character.

As for your endless fixation on AGM vs RNS: grown-ups know RNS wording is hedged, cautious, boilerplate. You’ve built an entire conspiracy theory out of the word ‘potentially’ like a man decoding secret messages in his cornflakes.

And your Engsolve line? Hilarious. You demand figures that obviously sit in internal accounts, then crow ‘can’t be under NDA!’ as if repeating it makes you sound clever. It doesn’t. It makes you sound like what you are: a bore with no grasp of how businesses disclose information.

So here’s the reality, Twat: you’re not feared, you’re not respected, you’re tolerated. Barely. You’ve driven every sensible poster away, and you still think hammering out 1,000 words of bile counts as insight. It doesn’t. It’s just noise.

And every time you hit ‘post,’ the only thing anyone sees is the bloke who couldn’t use Google.

Red, spare us the sermon. You’ve joined forces with Twat, the only man alive who failed a Google search, and now want to lecture me on debate standards? That’s rich.

Let’s be clear: repeating AGM statements isn’t me putting PE on a pedestal, it’s me quoting the CEO of the company. That’s how facts work. You can spin it as ‘misleading’ or ‘overly positive’ all you like, but unless you were there — which you weren’t — you’re just speculating from the cheap seats.

As for your strawman about me demanding customer feedstock results in an HYR: I mocked the idea precisely because it’s absurd. Customers don’t sign NDAs so their waste profiles can be pasted into interim reports to cheer up Red on a share forum. You’ve tried to twist that into something else because it suits your script.

And the 24/7 revenue fantasy? Exactly that — fantasy. The FTU is a test unit, not a commercial plant. If a couple of posters dreamed up a cash machine at Bridgend, that’s their wishful thinking, not company policy. You know it, but you keep dragging it up because you’re short of material.

Financials? They’re exactly what you’d expect from a tech company in development. Cash burn is part of the model, not a scandal. Pretending it’s some shocking discovery is about as convincing as your new double act with Twat. One can’t read an RNS, the other can’t work Google, and both think they’re geniuses. The rest of us see clowns.

Red, you’ve teamed up with Twat now? Christ, it’s like watching the world’s worst double act — one mangles Google searches, the other mangles RNS clauses. Between you, you couldn’t parse a bus timetable.

Let’s get this straight: Paul Emmitt said at the AGM the FTU was commissioned and had run customer feedstocks. That was said on record, in front of shareholders. That remains a fact whether or not the HYR used cautious boilerplate (‘once fully commissioned’). You can dress it up in LOLs and smirks all you like, it doesn’t change what was actually said.

And your idea that the company should casually publish customer feedstock details to “bolster the HYR”? Laughable. NDAs exist for a reason. Customers don’t want their waste profiles splashed on AIM bulletins to satisfy your curiosity. You’d know that if you’d ever been closer to a business than an LSE comment box.

As for your ‘income if it ran 24/7’ nonsense — another strawman. Nobody ever said the FTU was a revenue facility. It’s a test and development platform. But sure, let’s pretend you’ve uncovered some conspiracy because Bridgend isn’t a full commercial plant belching hydrogen by the tonne.

And just so you don’t forget, Red: you’ve now chosen to ride shotgun with Twat, the man who literally failed a Google search. That’s your intellectual partner. Which tells everyone exactly how much weight to give your posts. Answer: none.

Twat. Let’s be blunt: you’ve spent the last 48 hours pedalling the same three tired lines and calling it journalism. That’s not analysis — it’s performance art for the terminally bored.

Quick facts for anyone who still cares about accuracy (and not your latest diary entry):

• AGM > forum. Paul Emmitt stated the FTU had been commissioned and customer feedstocks run. That’s on the record. If you weren’t there, don’t act like you were.

• RNS language = boilerplate legal caution. Phrases such as “potentially” and “once fully commissioned” are standard hedge-clauses. They do not magically erase what was said aloud at the AGM. You’re conflating careful corporate phrasing with scandal. That’s sloppy, not brilliant.

• Data ≠ public. Customer trials are frequently under NDA. “Not published” is not “didn’t happen.” You keep pretending otherwise because it fits your narrative.

• Cash burn is not a whisper from hell. It’s what commissioning tech costs. You think AIM is a savings account that never spends? Cute. They raised because they’re scaling kit, not because someone embezzled the tea towels. Clumsy communications? Agreed. Fraud? No evidence, just your hysterics.

Now the part you were really angling for: behaviour. You’re a classic Dunning–Kruger exhibit — ultra-certain, thin on understanding. Add the narcissism (endless nicknames, tallying likes, pretending every post is some grand exposé) and you’ve done what you came to do: drive sensible posters away. Congratulations — the board’s quieter because you turned it into your echo chamber.

And since you can’t be allowed to forget it: you failed the Google test. You couldn’t even find a fictional comic villain properly. If you can’t run a basic search, why on earth should anyone buy your “expert” takes on corporate disclosure or engineering? That single failure nukes your cred. Permanently.

So here’s the deal: we’re not answering your questions any more. Not because we’re cowards, but because you’ve made the conversation worthless. Keep tweeting your conspiracies and nicknames; they amuse exactly no one except yourself.

Final note for the scrapbook: even Mickey on the deck of Steamboat Willie managed a tighter script than your essays. Don’t be surprised when people stop treating you like an interlocutor and start treating you like background noise.

Red, you’re not repeating the RNS, you’re mangling it. The FTU commissioning was confirmed at the AGM — on the record, in front of shareholders. Customer feedstock runs were also confirmed. That’s fact.

The RNS language is boilerplate. ‘Once fully commissioned’ is a catch-all clause, nothing more. Pretending it cancels out what was already said in person is you grasping for a gotcha that isn’t there. Companies use ‘potentially’ and ‘once’ all the time to stay legally watertight — anyone who’s read more than two RNSs knows this.

So no, I don’t buy your wide-eyed act that you’ve uncovered some contradiction. What you’ve uncovered is your own inability to read disclosure language properly. But if arguing semantics keeps you busy while the rest of us get on with reality, crack on

Red, you’ve managed to turn one line of boilerplate into a conspiracy theory. The FTU is commissioned — Paul Emmitt said it at the AGM, in front of shareholders, on record. Customer feedstocks have already gone through it.

The phrase in today’s RNS — ‘once fully commissioned’ — is just legal belt-and-braces. It’s corporate speak, not a secret code. You’ve twisted it into ‘oh dear, they misled us’ as if you’ve uncovered Watergate, when really you’ve just proven you can’t read RNS language properly.

If you can’t even parse standard disclosure wording, why should anyone trust your interpretation of what’s happening at Bridgend? It’s not the board misleading here — it’s you.

Back again, Twat — sweating it out in Rio while still failing at Google. Let’s not rewrite history: you typed ‘cartton character’ into the search bar and couldn’t even spell it properly, then blamed the internet for not showing you Phineas Quayle. That isn’t analysis, that’s incompetence. If you can’t even manage a basic search, why would anyone treat your rants about PHE as anything but background noise?

And please, spare us the lecture on slang. You’ve spent years slinging abuse at everyone here — now you want to play language professor? Mickey Mouse had more self-awareness than you, and at least he made people laugh on purpose. You? Just another angry little man mistaking wordcount for authority.

As for your latest ‘simple question,’ keep shouting into the void. Nobody’s answering you because you’ve lost the right to be taken seriously. Fail Google, fail the board.

Testtwat, thank you for finally admitting what we all saw — you tried to Google Dr Anomoly and still failed. That isn’t a ‘question,’ it’s proof you can’t even use the most basic research tool. If you can’t manage a search box, why would anyone take your lectures on NOMAD rules or hydrogen markets seriously?

And Trollpack, spare us the Copacabana victory laps. Repeating the word doesn’t make it true. You’ve convinced yourself by incantation, not evidence. Location theatre isn’t proof, it’s pantomime.

As for this tired fantasy about me working unpaid for PHE — you’ve been parroting that for ages without a shred of evidence. It’s the same as your ‘syngas data’ obsession: loud noise, zero substance.

Meanwhile, you whine about ‘schoolboy name calling’ while calling me ‘moron,’ ‘fool’ and ‘pathological liar’ in the same paragraph. Testwobble, that’s not debate, it’s hypocrisy.

And please, don’t flatter yourself with the idea you’ve ‘got to me.’ You’re the one writing Copacabana breakfast essays, complete with nursery rhymes and self-congratulation. If that’s your idea of victory, it’s a very strange one indeed.

So yes, the same old tired routine is here — yours. The routine of failing at Google, shouting at phantoms, and trying to convince a message board you’re the cleverest man in the room. Everyone else can see it for what it is.

Castle, i am Bob - i overreacted and did kick you out, again my apologies, you are welcome to come back if you want.

CastlePaul, i did send an apology a few weeks back to you, i'm sorry you feel this way.

Testtwat, you bang on about ‘truth’ yet still can’t bring yourself to admit the Dr Anomoly fiasco from the other day. Everyone saw it, everyone laughed, and instead of showing the slightest scrap of grace, you went straight back to finger-pointing. That’s not honesty, that’s hypocrisy. And Trollpack, let’s not forget you’ve already proven you can’t even run a basic Google search. If the simplest research tool defeats you, why on earth would anyone treat your ramblings on NOMAD rules or hydrogen markets as anything more than background noise?

So Testwobble, you keep insisting you’ve ‘really got to me,’ but all you’ve done is given me a new sport: half-answers, throwaway jokes, and watching you splutter. It’s entertainment, not debate. Alias conspiracies, liar rants, nursery rhymes… it’s the same tired routine. You think it makes you look sharp. To everyone else, you’re just Copacabana’s loudest clown — a hypocrite dodging his own blunders while pretending to be the wise old hand.

Hey twat, you might want to get your 'google' updated, this is the second link when you search for Dr. Anomaly - https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Phineas_Quayle_(Earth-One)

What a muppet you really are - absolute loser.

And only to rescue us from the pedantry, and I didn't mention the 1950s - you told us all that you have invested for 50 years, I think, so that makes you about 70, right? This is from my childhood, to be completely explicit.

BTW twat - Dr. Anomaly is a DC Comics villain, but he appeared in Justice League of America #240 (1985)—not in the 1950s. His real name is Phineas Quayle, a time-travelling scientist who styles himself as a superscientist (“Doctor Anomaly”) in a tuxedo and top hat. He debuted in the mid-’80s and has only appeared once. https://www.comicbookreligion.com/?Dr_Anomaly=&c=7356&utm_ Now be a man and STFU.

testpack, you’re not debating, you’re polluting. every post is the same ****tail of pedantry, narcissism, and spite. you ignore what doesn’t suit, you never answer straight questions, and then you bark demands like the board owes you attention. that isn’t debate, it’s bullying dressed up as intellect.

the result? you’ve bored every sensible contributor into silence. what could’ve been discussion is now just you, shrieking into the void, convinced your noise is wisdom. it isn’t. it’s unedifying — like watching a constipated man battering his keyboard, working out his frustrations in public.

you call others liars, fools, frauds — but it’s projection. you’re just a bitter little troll, in love with your own reflection, obsessed with nicknames and make-believe conspiracies. nobody respects it. nobody’s fooled by it. and nobody but you mistakes it for insight.