Member Info for OofyProsser

gkb47: I think a placing. Even Riverfort wouldn’t lend against a speculative drill for oil in Turkey by a company that will be bust or need another similar loan if it’s a duster, surely?

Re Jonathan, I don’t think he was inducted into the World Elephant Polo Association, was he? . Ordinary polo yes and he’s certainly familiar with horse (pony?) manure, what? Good for his rhubarb too. I dare say he’s less well financed than he was, what with Anguish, Challenger, America 2030 etc., what, what? Polo’s an expensive sport. People like it though.

HITS: a good thing this isn’t the other Angus site, the resident shill there would say your grammar post is “supposition”!

beesty69: I give too many free investment tutorials on these sites, I don’t want to start on English lessons really. But it is “should have”, not “should of”.

beesty69: should have..

Mullins58: I’m offended..

...or maybe Cynderlad could play Dick Whittington and you lot the pus in someone’s boots.

..perhaps it would be an idea to put the horse before the cart and get informed rather than parrot today's RNS umpteen times? If people want to see the RNS a second time, there’s a link for that at the top of the page, thank you.

..so why don’t you do any research yourself? All you seem to do is read the company’s output and parrot it on these sites ad nauseam. And why do you do that?

danpoe353: though I’m not one of them, of course, I don’t think the trolls believe you're bad. Not at all. A little ingenuous, perhaps, but not bad. I hope you will get lucky in it. It’s a shame, though, when people suffer from investing and remaining invested in these “lifestyle” companies (AIM itself, for that matter, is a “lifestyle” market). There’s a chap on another oil company chat site who’s turned to drink over his losses there, and his wife has left him. The shills may think their activities are victimless but this view is far from the truth.

Skwizz: thanks very much. If the shills here do get me banned, as I expect, I shall move across to ADVFN. Emigrés from LSE have made one or two of the ADVFN sites quite a bit better than the corresponding LSE sites now and ADVFN don’t censor decent polite posts - though the shills are everywhere. I wonder how long this post will remain up. Sayonara!

HITS: thanks very much! I think I’m hanging by a thread here. Quite a lot of people were kind enough to “recommend” a couple of my posts yesterday and the shills really don’t like that, it undermines them. A couple of quite innocent posts have already been removed this morning, I dare say the shills requested my being banned at the same time. It’s only a matter of time, I think. Good luck with this. You never know..

..Still, the Directors of this company will be impressed if they see Lucky-Strike buying lots of shares in it. “What’s this? Turn-round situation? Who says so? First we've heard about it”. Until now, even the Directors have failed to see any reason to buy the shares.

Lucky-Strike: if you’re really looking for some reason to be invested in this, you’d do better to address your nosey-parker questions to Ocelot.

....unfiltering, not unfaltering (I doubt anyone would describe Lucky-Strike as unfaltering).

matherdj: i quite agree with you. AIM is not a properly regulated stock market. It’s exactly what you and gkb47 are saying it is. No effective oversight, vulnerable private investors left to the tender mercies of dodgy companies, greedy, unscrupulous management and multifarious financial and PR advisers. The money that these people take in salaries, bonuses, options, club memberships, expenses, emoluments etc. has to be paid for and shareholders are the people who foot all the bills, ultimately. Dodgy, unsound, virtually bankrupt companies are kept going with share placings etc., which gullible investors are persuaded to take part in by wildly optimistic and quite unjustified forecasts of much jam tomorrow. Disappointment follows disappointment and then they are persuaded by plausible company shills to “average down”. Ultimately, these shills often recommend these deadbeat companies as “turnaround situations” - just the thing they themselves look to invest in.

I see, on temporarily unfaltering him, that the unpleasant shill Lucky-Strike is asking all and sundry why they still hold shares in this prime turkey. Has he spotted the flaws in Ocelot’s arguments? Can he see no value in it, either?

Ocelot:”I've nothing to do with PR.

Lucky-Strike, the constant bashing is tedious but you are accustomed to seeing it on another board we both frequent and I suspect it is a phenomenon common to a lot of these boards.”

So, not filtered then. And working for the same outfit.

I can’t see what Lucky-Strike is saying. I’ve filtered him. Was he Lord Lucan’s preferred fag at Eton?

Yes, that was the question I was expecting and these are the comments I was expecting too. They’ll be coming thick and fast now, and from more than one new poster. Always attack the poster when there’s no answer to his investment argument. Quite unpleasant.

I’m sorry to post such a lot, but what we’re seeing now is absolutely typical of these people. Ocelot’s latest off-sider, Lucky-Strike, has been called into action from the Anguish site to protect Ocelot’s exposed rear end here. If you've said you’ve filtered someone, you can’t then try to rebut their points yourself, can you? There will soon be others of them, there’s quite a few of these PR people about at the moment. It may mean something’s about to happen at UKOG, I suspect. What can it be?

Oh, and Ocelot’s posts are not factual.

And why would Ocelot have me on filter? Does anyone believe this? No, it’s more likely that he /she prefers, understandably, not to answer the question as to being a paid mouthpiece for UKOG or its agents. I’d do the same if I were involved in his/her trade, since in the event of an eventual inquiry into the actions of AIM-listed companies and their associates, it would be difficult for someone in the pay of such a company to justify having denied being paid by it on these sites for puffing its shares, wouldn’t it?

Their most unpleasant trick is to try to provoke well researched posters on these sites to say that they’re not invested in the shares, and/or wouldn’t touch it with a long stick. They then run off, thrilled, to LSE’s site admin. LSE makes a fair bit of money out of these companies so they’re only too happy to accept the shills’ complaint that this well researched poster is here merely to disrupt, as evidenced by their not holding the shares. The person then gets banned from the site.

The moral of this is, don’t allow yourself to be provoked into discussing your shareholding status. Me, I’ll be interested in adding at a lower price. Not just yet.