Member Info for Ginodog

Hawi - many people have questioned that over the years. He’s moved over to the Nano boards both here and on ADVFN purely as a vendetta against those posters on Tremor. I fear that Sammy may be right and that, like a lot of trolls across different platforms, this is all he’s got in his life and he gets a kick out of it.

Hawi - good on you. I did that for about 3 months on the Tremor board!

Hawi - he won’t answer those questions no matter how many times you ask. He just ignores. It’s his MO. He’s been doing exactly the same for the last 10 years on the Tremor / RhythmOne / Blinkx board.

There you go again STT1 - using the exact narrative to suit you. 9 months ago TLY were 45p and have since lost nearly 20p off that. I average 19p on Nano so am still laughing at the moment. We can all twist the narrative to suit our own needs. You’ve always done exactly that over the years.

*Relentlessness.

TM58 - people have been asking him the same questions for years on the Tremor board. He doesn’t answer. Just reverts to his MO of restlessness and cutting and pasting. Many people actually thought he was a disgruntled ex member of staff on that board because of how tireless he was!!

TM58 - he is a classic stock basher.

Appears mostly on good news. Posts tirelessly. Cuts and pastes the same things over and over. Retrospectively comes out with “I told you so’s” (eg after 10 years of negativity trying to tell everyone that he was actually a holder and sold the stop right at the top end)

Everyone can read your history on Tremor - bashing the stock for ten years and then suddenly announcing that you were actually a holder but had sold out right at the top end.

Hahahahahaha!

And Gig in at 349 posts in the last 30 days. He’s trying even harder! Especially for someone that has sold out!

Flying Higher - 253 Nano posts in the last 30 days! That’s someone who’s trying REALLY hard.

Flying Higher still rolling out the Edison “if anything is left over” line, even though we clarified what they ACTUALLY meant on a direct email from them.

Desperation kicking in. The more noisy, the more desperate!

Flying Higher - you are asking people to trust algo generated articles from Simply Wallstreet, when just on Monday you were questioning the Head of Technology at Edison on his personalised email response regarding the Edison Article?

You really are quite the plonker.

I've posted a link to the screenshot of the email - so no need for anyone to consider "accepting at face value"

Gig - although your approach is much more subtle than that of FH - it's still patently obvious that you have ulterior motives in your posts.

You make steadfast comments to make them sound "entirely obvious" and that stupidity is the order of the day for most posters here. Yet you spent yesterday pushing the agenda that Nano retaining nothing was entirely possible based on the Edison note, which most of us knew, based on all the other evidence, you had mis-interpreted.
Now your narrative has subtly moved to Nano's retention "not being in the £000's millions.
I think you've said enough to lose your credibility - and that of the other 6 dwarves.

“If the email is legit”!! Hahaha - there you go again trying to create doubt. Here’s a hosted screenshot of this makes you feel better…

https://ibb.co/DVxc36Q

How can you have any credibility left when you were trying to use the Edison note to steer your own narrative and present it as fact? They’ve now clarified exactly what they mean. Which all the genuine people on this board already knew.

Why don’t you buzz off?

You’d hope - but unfortunately their MO is to get louder when the evidence falls against them.

FH - remember this from approx 1hr and 20m ago - “ In my opinion I know for 100% fact there won't be a special dividend”

Flying higher, Gigwitt - would be interesting to get your take on this given that this came directly from the outlet who wrote the article of which you were using as context for the “absolute facts” that you’ve been discussing for the last two days?

FH - Remember “ Retaining nothing is now entirely credible.”
Gig - Remember - “ The 9/1 Edison note explains this and the possibility that Nanoco may not retain any of the settlement at all.”

Re: FAO: Anne Margaret Crow - Edison Note on Nanoco Litigation Update

Dear Ryan,

What we mean is that one Nanoco has received the settlement cash - management is likely to seek to retain enough cash to support the commercialisation of its organic business, and then is likely to redistribute the balance to shareholders.

Thanks

Dan


Dan Ridsdale?
Head of Technology , Edison Group
Tel: +44 (0)7930 166512
dridsdale@edisongroup.com | www.edisongroup.com

280 High Holborn , London , WC1V 7EE
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
LinkedIn

All - I had a response this morning from Dan Risdale, Head of Technology at Edison. For transparency, I’ll also share the email that I sent:

Hi Anne

I hope this email finds you well and that you had a nice weekend.

I am a Nanoco Investor and recently read the note that you penned for Edison following the Nano vs Samsung litigation update (Settlement RNS and additional RNS on expectations)

One statement in the note that seems to be causing confusion is “ If the company retains any of the final settlement money….”

Most PIs are interpreting this as meaning that Nanoco may use its portion of the settlement to distribute as dividends or to invest rather than use for cash runway as opposed to Nanoco not keeping any of the settlement once the funders and lawyers have been paid.

Are you able to clarify what was meant by that statement?

Many Thanks