Member Info for Nanogeddon

If you knew so much and really expected peanuts Gig, you would have sold before you did, and certainly before the SP reached the 20s. You talk crap.

Yeah... you have point. LOL.

"Didn’t he say that it was about negotiations and you are hardly going to publicly state you’re willing to accept a low amount……that’s only going to result in an even lower amount."
Fair point NGR. An awkward dilemma. Does it excuse misleading shareholders to the extent that he did?

Idiots get lucky.
I don't actually think you are an idiot. I think you have an agenda and act like an idiot with your responses.

There you go again. You prove my point.

You are not answering the question. You deflect from it every time, like a politician.

The complaint made by many is clear. It is regarding BT's communication prior to the 9 Jan RNS. And your response is always that the 9 Jan RNS was clear.

You are either an idiot and can't understand the question, or you have an agenda to deflect from the point.

Great. Let's hear everyone's views. But once is enough, or maybe every few days. But Gig gives the same answer to other people's points and it doesn't address the points that he knows they are raising.
Gig is defending the company without cause on many points that have been raised. I don't know why, but I can guess.

GigWitt is a self obsessed attention seeker. Somehow many (including myself at times) have been sucked into continually responding to him and encouraging him to give his repetitive garbage responses as if he was the oracle of all wisdom.

Please stop responding to him! He has nothing useful to say. He responds to virtually NONE of your messages.

Don't give him the attention that he craves.

* the ISSUE is the communication from BT prior to 9 Jan ... OVER AND OVER!

Oh Please SHUT UP Gig. You spout the same response to everyone all the time.

You know DAMN WELL that this is the communication from BT PRIOR to 9 Jan.

If you have nothing to say then SHUT THE F UP!!!!!!

hummmm.... cant find those pages....

I agree Troublesome

"If litigation funds pulled the plug early they'd ruin their own business obviously. It's been explained often, including during investor presentations by Chris Bogart of Burford Capital and it's the way the whole industry operates. That's why they do such deep stress testing."

Gig doesn't often write anything worth reading, but I agree with this. One could almost believe that he head read someone's comment, understood what was being said, and then wrote something coherent and relevant in response to it.

"I think the BoD's hands were tied because of the backers. Backers normally would want their money asap and via the easiest route."
Nah.

ClaireSmith, can you tell me what IP has been validated other than individual patents that now have little chance of making any money from?
The other Nanoco patents have not, as I understand it, been validated.

The BoD think they have done a great job and will be looking for pay rises.

I will vote against all pay rises until we see some orders.

How do we push for a director pay cut?

What rubbish. You have too much time on your hands.

"Can anyone find me a single occasion when you were made a categorical guarantee that the case would be won and you’d all multiply your investments?"
No point in responding to you Gig. You can't seem to keep up with the conversation.

"BT told you in an RNS that the outcome was going to be at the low end and based on income not revenue. This was prior to the RNS detailing the settlement. Referring back to what he said before the RNS of the 9th is irrelevant."
This is not relevant to the points we are making NGR. The point is that shareholders invested prior to the 9/1 based on 2 years of BT bigging up the litigation value, and also saying that he wouldn't accept less than fair value. BT's communications AT THAT point in time were misleading.

Correct Feeks. I feel that an important question for BT to answer is what was meant by the lower end of expectations, whose expectations he was referring to, and he needs to provide a reference to evidence the expectations he was referring to.