Member Info for Hydro-Jen

Much though he spouts nonsense and he clearly has minimal understanding of the market making process it isn't true to say every buy is a sell in the sense of it being some sort of matched bargain driven by actual investor demand; liquidity would dry up overnight of that was the case. The trades are reported by MMs and they are saying whether someone has sold to them or bought from them.

I'm not a massive fan of being unfairly accused of nefarious behaviour by nutjobs. Weirdly.

Yep, you're right Heath. But only one name at a time! I'm specifically talking about the deranged fool, not to him... I hereby pledge not to engage with him again, despite the constant provocation

As I suggested, SOAG, the man is so obsessed with his own perceived reality that it is absolutely impossible for rational debate to happen. It really is borderline (and that's being generous) personality disorder.

For what it's worth I thought the IM presentation was broadly positive but it's an inescapable truth (to almost everybody) that real material revenue is now a little further out than was hoped for and that obviously cranks up the risk factors a little more, which is why the market reacted as it did on Friday.

Surely, SOAG, the time has come to just not engage with him. It is completely impossible to have any form of meaningful debate with anyone who can only see things one way regardless of overall circumstances and risks. One might have thought that having been demonstrably wrong so often on so many things that a little humility might have developed, but that is clearly not going to happen.

Bearing in mind that it traded significantly lower on Tradegate on Friday, this morning's reaction is quite muted in the circumstances and certainly can't be described as a 'blood bath'

Well done Mr News, you have finally got something right. I am indeed 'laudable'

Your behaviour is truly bizarre. For years you swallowed every single thing Bond said as the 100% undeniable truth. Like the rest of us that left you way under water. And despite the fact that was clearly mistaken you are still convinced that anyone who expressed the slightest scintilla of doubt could only have done so because they are a shorter.

Yet here you are accepting every single thing that Wilson says as a definitive statement of what WILL happen. Now, I place more store by his ability than that of his predecessor to turn AFC into a commercial business but we are still quite some way from that happening and there are many potential bumps in the road between now and then. Any of them could send us into the ditch.

Do you not think it might be sensible and logical to just retain a small degree of scepticism? Even just 1% would open your blinkers to the possibility that not everything will develop absolutely perfectly? I'm sure that Mr Wilson himself would take that approach because he doesn't come across as a complete fool.

In the meantime no doubt you will carry on seeing anyone who has any sort of balance in their view as a shorter, or having an 'alterior' motive as your lack of literacy would describe it. It is akin to the behaviour of a toddler who hasn't quite understood that everything the world may not be perfect and has a tantrum in the chocolate aisle of Tesco.

Grow up.

I tend to agree that we weren't really in the running for LTC given we are yet to really get commercial production going.

But hat didn't stop the usual suspect on here explaining in fine detail how we were nailed on for it because the deployment of HY5s at each end would negate the need to transport hydrogen via multiple lorries.

I'm not expecting an 'I was wrong' any time soon.

There was a brief golden period earlier this week when there was some good, civilised debate looking at the wider picture with some balance.

It was indeed a brief window, and now we're back to this nonsense that anyone who isn't 110% bullish all the time must be a shorter. It's so childish.

It is always with engaging (with the exception of Ade) . You could learn a lot if you were willing to debate.

It's very obvious that the order book under Bond was not an orderbook by any reasonable definition of that term.

That's history, it can't be changed.

I would expect that if and when Wilson tells us we have an orderbook then that is what it actually is.

You've no idea who dumped and who loaded up. Just speculation

Agree.

We will need material news to see that sort of increase but it's possible. This morning's kneejerk drop (largely on Tradegate) was ridiculous - I wish I had been in a position to take advantage of that

Stas20. Which of those items came as a surprise?

CN. I have pointed out specific examples of you ramping before and there is absolutely no doubt that is what you do, none at all.

You post some useful and interesting information but your lack of willingness to discuss it and see more than one side diminishes that usefulness very materially.

And those who were expecting material news today are not in touch with the real world

I can't believe that anyone is surprised by any elements of the results. They were all either known or obvious

You are talking in riddles. Maybe go back to just cutting and pasting from AI.

What? Obviously he's not referring to the current rental business using the horrendously overpriced model! He's talking about potential - self evidently that means in the future!!

AI is doing some pointless heavy lifting there, Ii4.

Whether Jane Street did anything untoward I wouldn't have a clue but it seems to be reasonably well established that Terraform may not have been entirely legitimate