Member Info for Obsisian

Netcurtains, #16024 Only candidate matching INCI; contextually aligned with Zenakine’s use. However, Zenakine is a patented name, therefore, should be on the labeL, as confirmed at the AGM.

Traders are liquidity — the pulse behind every price move. When the breakout signal fires, it’s the traders who’ll chase the share price like greyhounds after a hare. And the yin? A hefty seller quietly absorbed by Mr Dixon, sparing us from what could've been a truly catastrophic crash.

Bazzaman, please don't over-spin my exhange with Alex on Substack.

Shychap, How about showing the receipts instead of crying defamation, insult, and disenfranchisement? You’re doing a marvellous job of validating my thesis all by yourself. Winnifrith playbook in action. Claim victimhood without evidence.

If memory serves — and it usually does — you were the one peddling defamatory remarks and fabricated content. I distinctly recall Elric inviting you, quite publicly, to clarify your allegation. You claimed the article was no longer accessible. So, in good faith, he unlocked it.

And what did you do?

You didn’t engage.

You didn’t clarify.

You executed a textbook Winnifrith manoeuvre — deflect, distort, and disappear behind a cloud of faux outrage.

We all saw it. Some of us even took notes.

Thank you, Bazzao,

Shychap hasn’t just criticised Elric — he’s built an entire identity around being right about him. He’s positioned himself as the sceptic-in-chief, the whistleblower, the last honest man in the Sharemuppet wilderness. For him to apologise publicly would require not just saying “I got that wrong”, but unravelling the entire mythos he’s constructed around Elric as a villain.

That kind of public reversal is psychologically painful — especially for someone showing signs of narcissistic injury and self-righteous fixation.

Shychap, I had half-expected my apology to you would be a complete waste of time — and, as it turns out, that’s precisely where we differ. I’ve no issue admitting when I’m wrong; you, on the other hand, prefer to double down with admirable tenacity, if not much clarity or honesty. You're a deceitful chap.

You claim I’ve offered no evidence for my thesis on you, when, in fact, the evidence is primarily comprised of your own words — extensively quoted, I might add — and your actions, 'Tajfel & Turner.' The cognitive dissonance you exhibit, not unlike Mr Winnifrith’s, will surprise precisely no one who’s actually read the exchange.

And just to clarify for the record: yes, I also called out Winnifrith — using his own statements and receipts to expose his fabrications. So do spare me the pearl-clutching and lies.

Your attempts at rebuttal, delivered with all the insight and poise of Marianna Spring of BBC Verify, only further underscore precisely the kind of character we’re dealing with here.

Shychap, I’d like to extend a sincere apology for my belittling, underhanded remarks regarding your speed reduction campaign in previous posts.

After being nudged to give your message the attention it deserves—particularly your point that "Narrow lanes with no footpaths should never have been given the national speed limit and anyone with a scrap of human decency would acknowledge that legalising speeds of up to 60mph when children, dogs and other vulnerable road users are forced to use the road as their pavement proves a lack of care for residents or their quality of life"—I must admit, it’s difficult to argue with such plain and pressing logic.

Your advocacy on this issue is not only commendable, but necessary. The risks are very real, and your efforts highlight a problem that’s been far too easy to ignore.

I wish you the very best with the campaign, and I hope you’ll accept this apology in good faith—ideally without requiring me to stand in the middle of a 60mph lane to prove my sincerity.

It's hardly in the contender’s nature to miss the point—especially when it’s laid out plainly, in English, with all the subtlety of a neon sign in a blackout. Yet, he did. Someone isn't bright.

Ah, yes — how is the literary masterpiece “You Are Rarely in My Thoughts, Elrico” coming along, Shychap? A modern classic in passive-aggressive correspondence, I’m sure.

Naturally, you were first to leap from the bushes the moment Elric reappeared — like a loyal hound who’s sworn a vendetta but can’t resist the scent of familiarity. And, of course, as ever, you remain the cleverest man in any room... provided you’re the only one in it.

We’ll just have to take your word on that particular honour, though given your famously flexible relationship with facts, I think we’ll file it under “highly fictional” — possibly alongside your novel.

I'm sure we are all shocked to learn you don't have sense of humour.

Bazzaman, what you appear to overlook—or perhaps choose not to acknowledge—is the profoundly personal and distasteful nature of Tom Winnifrith’s attempts to defame and assassinate Elric’s character. Their shared history, coloured by banter and tongue-in-cheek exchanges, may well have once been mutually enjoyed. However, that context in no way justifies Winnifrith’s resort to falsehoods.

There is, quite simply, no defence for deliberate lies.

You may prefer to dismiss this as trivial or unworthy of attention—understandably so, perhaps, as it does not affect you personally. But to those directly targeted, it is neither minor nor forgettable.

No one is denying that Winnifrith has, on occasion, shone a light on instances of fraud and corruption. Yet this does not grant him carte blanche to behave abusively—least of all towards his own subscribers, whom he frequently addresses in an unkind and, at times, downright contemptuous manner.

I've never spoken to Elric about the matter directly (our involvement has been limited to setting my Substack, not the content, and our team’s analysis of available data), but I get the distinct impression that Elric’s approach is deliberately informal—perhaps even disarmingly so. It seems designed to put the executive at ease, with the aim of drawing out more detailed and revealing answers. And yes, at times he does let Ashman ramble on longer than one might prefer. I share that sentiment.

That said, I daresay few—if any—on this forum have ever conducted an interview with a CEO. I imagine it's no small task. It must be rather nerve-racking, particularly with the awareness that every word, every question, every pause is being scrutinised—often with knives already sharpened in anticipation of failure.

It’s a level of pressure I suspect most here haven’t paused to consider.

So yes, perhaps he forgot to ask one or two questions. But shall we really reach for the pitchforks over that? Line up the poor sod and have him shot for missing a beat?

I recall a time when Elric was a regular presence on this forum—engaging with others, offering help, and contributing in good faith. Sadly, that seems to have changed. He’s been hounded into silence, effectively driven into exile, and it is, undeniably, a loss to the community.

Perhaps it’s time for those who so often claim the moral high ground to pause and reflect on their own conduct. Because frankly, it hasn’t been helpful—nor, I’d argue, has it upheld the standards they so readily demand of others.

Yes. A moral code!

Bazzaman, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that Tom "means no harm." In my view, his actions suggest quite the opposite—particularly in relation to Elric and the Lemming Investor episode.

When an individual knowingly distorts context, fabricates events, and propagates falsehoods about another—especially with the intent to defame—it ceases to be mere misunderstanding and crosses into malice. Tom’s claim that Elric "weaponised" the death of his mother is not only unfounded, but flies in the face of the actual record: Elric publicly condemned the true offender. To portray that as exploitation is not only dishonest; it is a calculated character attack.

Moreover, Tom was made aware of the factual correction, yet chose to double down. At that point, we are no longer in the realm of innocent error—we are in the territory of deliberate falsehood. One must then ask: what other motive could there be?

That is a sincere question. I welcome any attempt to defend the indefensible—though we both know one individual who may yet rise to the occasion.

Anyway, the Seneca overhang is now well and truly behind us. A clear demonstration that the board—alongside their broker and the ever-diligent nomads—can act with decisiveness when it counts. Onward.

Bazzaman, A little self-reflection might be in order, dear chap—just a smidge, a fleeting glance in the cracked mirror of self-awareness, before diving back into the shallow end of hypocrisy.

Of course, I’ll politely ignore the small detail that you’ve not suggested the same to Shychap. But hey, the irrational mind is a complex beast, isn’t it? Full of nuance, contradiction, and the occasional delusion held together with caffeine and spite. Like saying, “I’m unbiased,” right after screaming “Winnifrith is the Messiah!” while waving a pitchfork made of screenshots and unverified tweets.

Still, I admire the commitment. Takes a special kind of mental gymnastics to pull a muscle in logic and keep going like nothing happened. Bravo.

I do hope Shychap isn't blushing.

Just one more, please, kind Sir.

https://open.substack.com/pub/psychological4investors/p/part-ii-psychological-profile-simon?r=5eb7sb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

The Curious Case of Simon “Sesame” Chapman – A Study in Obsession, Contradiction, and Cronyism

Simon Chapman, a.k.a. sesame100 / Shychap, loudly claims to be the lone voice of reason among SBTX shareholders — an incorruptible truth-teller untainted by cults or paywalls.

And yet…

Despite owning shares himself, Chapman has waged a relentless, obsessive campaign against Lemming Investor — the very platform that’s offered deep-dive research and CEO access, and which has arguably contributed to share price recovery. He’s lashed out at its editor, Elric (or “Eldric” when the bitterness seeps into his typos), in over a dozen recent posts, while insisting — with a straight face — that “Elrico is rarely in my thoughts.”

Meanwhile, his silence toward Tom Winnifrith is deafening. Chapman never questions Tom’s contradictions, failed predictions, or tantrums. Why? Because he’s not just a poster — he’s a wannabe protégé, seemingly performing his public attacks as a twisted form of courtship, hoping for Winnifrith’s approval while attempting to dismantle a rival voice of influence.

This isn’t due diligence.

It’s not research.

It’s not objectivity.

It’s obsession — poorly disguised as principle — and all of it laid bare, one desperate post at a time.

https://psychological4investors.substack.com/p/part-i-psychological-profile-simon

Simon, even the wildly unhinged fabulist Mr Winnifrith — a man seemingly locked in a lifelong wrestling match with cognitive dissonance — has at least managed to shuffle on from the AGM. You, however, are more persistently irritating than Ryanair’s idea of a “fast track”.

You proudly claim to confront every issue head-on, yet you pirouette around them with the grace of a tipsy ballerina. Whether this is due to dishonesty, selective amnesia, or the rather delicious possibility that you are Mr Winnifrith’s LSE sock puppet, remains unclear. Frankly, I suspect you’re merely doing his bidding, like some tragic character from a low-budget political farce.

Regardless, I shan’t be indulging your nonsense any further. The curtain has fallen on the AGM — the topic is closed.

Just for you, Mr Winnifrith

Note: I deal with facts, not lies.

https://psychological4investors.substack.com/p/on-narrative-emotion-and-mr-winnifriths

No problem at all, Toyin. You're clearly an honest broker, and someone held in high regard by our mutual friend. You engage in good faith — no twisting of context, no bending of facts, and importantly, no personal jabs. I suspect I could learn a thing or two from your approach on that last point.

Shychap, you appear to have mistaken me for a halfwit. I see your manoeuvre clearly — a rather clumsy attempt to discredit Lemming Investor’s measured analysis through diversion and sleight of hand.

You neatly sidestepped the central issue: namely, the call for you to provide actual receipts to substantiate your claims of historic “misinformation.” Instead, you launched into a running monologue centred on your current obsession — the AGM — which, I might add, has come and gone with all the excitement of a damp Tuesday. The turnout was minimal, judging by the vote count, which you’ve attempted to spin with the finesse of a career politician.

In case you missed it (understandable, given your focus on shadows), SkinBio has since strengthened its board — a gesture that may go some way towards addressing concerns at the next AGM. The theatrics surrounding the last one were ill-timed, poorly judged, and, amusingly, SkinBio somehow managed to top your list of urgent causes, while your other investments — supposedly of equal concern — barely warranted a mention. Curious, that. You’ve never answered why.

And yet, you expect me to fall in line with your whims.

Now, as to your beloved "quotes" — I’d categorise them as classic mischief-making, whichever way you try to dress them up. Unlike you, I actually spoke to Elric (Alex didn’t respond) to get the facts. He confirmed he raised the idea with Mr Ashman during a call, suggesting improvements in investor communications. He also made it abundantly clear that implementing such a move would be terrible optics — an explicit warning, not a rallying cry.

Of course — your strategy is perfectly transparent: to hurl further unfounded allegations from outside the paywall, while expecting to be taken seriously. One can only assume, therefore, that you haven’t actually read the full breadth of what’s been published. I have. And let me be clear — anyone foolish enough to take you at your word is making a serious mistake.

Both Alex and Elric have been openly critical of SkinBio and of Mr Ashman himself. They’ve raised specific, substantive concerns. To suggest they are part of some PR operation to protect Mr Ashman is a complete fabrication — a distortion of fact bordering on the delusional. It's not a bad idea though.

I’ve yet to see anyone rallying to support your Mr Winnifrith–esque rhetoric. Tell me — is he paying you to undermine the so-called ‘rodents’? It’s a legitimate question, because your approach has all the hallmarks, or at the very least the stench, of a coordinated campaign.

I’ve little doubt Mr Winnifrith will continue to do his utmost to undermine the company over the coming year. After all, it’s now painfully obvious that he made a monumental error. He's an emotional fellow, so I expect more of the same from him, and you.

Oh dear. My point, dear Contender for Court Jester, is that you quite evidently hadn’t read my Substack post before offering your commentary. Mr Ashman was scarcely mentioned, and certainly not central to the piece — so your retrospective dissection of my previous remarks about him was both out of context and largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You appear either unwilling or unable to stick to the point, let alone appreciate the value of honest, good-faith dialogue.

For your continued amusement, I remain sceptical as to whether Mr Ashman will deliver on what he has primed the market to expect in the coming months. There are, as I see it, at least three metaphorical landmines he could quite easily detonate beneath himself. He has a reputation in need of rehabilitation — and that, I suspect, will take time. He had a bad habit to crack, hence the board upgrade, dear fellow.

I also reserve the right to change my mind. I trust that’s acceptable to you, sir.

An excellent illustration, AquaeSulis — and perhaps the clearest example yet of the concerns I’ve raised regarding emotionally charged rhetoric. It’s a style that has cost Mr Winnifrith personally, but more troublingly, it has also come at the expense of the very public he purports to serve.

Now, of course, one might argue that we are all adults, responsible for our own decisions. Fair enough. But let’s not overlook the fact that Mr Winnifrith operates a tipping service, offering advisory verdicts to retail investors — many of whom, I suspect, lack either the time or the tools to conduct their own thorough due diligence. That’s precisely why they subscribe.

And that, ultimately, is the crux of my concern. Am I being so unreasonable? AquaeSulis has, quite plainly, exposed the glaring issue.