Member Info for Skwizz

Oh, I see what you mean now.
(I was only quoting Cinders' earlier post...)

:D

Lol Qwerty.
I'm sixty bud.
I find it all rather amusing.
;)

Cinders, I really dont care for your rampings/ramblings on this board. FTSE is not a dart board where money can be made without risk. You and ohmetoe and clearly trying to deflect proper conversation of UKOG on the UKOG board. I wonder why?

You seem not to have read my posts.
LOL!
:D

Different rights for different users eh?
Btw, who were you before this user?
Lololol.

Yeah, they've been selling all their stock to push the price down so they can buy stock.
Errr...

Good luck, Doria.
Hope it works for you.
:)

Different people see different sensibles.
For instance.., ALL of this has been discussed in multiple threads and across multiple weeks already.
It's all still ongoing.
Every day.
But you kick it off again in a new thread.
:)

I'm not going to start calling him "8p" now.
:D

To be fair, I did it from my living room.
It is possible.
Just not with his prophecy skills.
And yes - not with all of his Mumbai customers, clamouring to be served.
;)

Never has,but still they blab on, trying to suck anyone else they can in.
"Misery loves company".
;)

Reported.

Sinbad

QUOTE
Kswizz and mrashole are obsessed with ukog, on here day in day out, after every post buth of you post. Nothing to do, no job maybe or furloghed, whatever it is you two are pathetic, boring and lying about everything really as pointed out by others.
Get a life, there is more to it than bashing a share on here 27/7, anyways no one gives a nut about the opinion of a pair of bell ends, the majority of people who invest are quiet intelligent and do their own research and push aside ranpers and wannkeerrs
UNQUOTE

Really?
Lololol.
Ah well.

I'm sixty, bud.
I retired at fifty five (and a half).
I spend a lot of my time managing my investments now.
You can get upset about that if you like.
I shan't.
:D

Crocq'
Yep, Was just talking to another (friend) invewstor this morning about that.
It is disgusting that they feel that's acceptable.
Trouble is, at least for me, I don't believe most of what he says now even when he does say anything.

Part of my career has been making quick judgements of people.
I did that with 'Trousers' and it wasn't good.
Still isn't.
Pity as I have great respect for ex-services people and he is ex-services, apparently.
(I judged 'Lenny' even faster - lolol).
;)

Weirdly, I see more and more rampers.
Well, more user names anyway.
Obviously they're the same rampers, just with different user names after their constant bans.

The "bashers" you refer to think there could be a future and are bashing the way it's being managed now.
Many of us believe it could be done better and are sick of seeing such obvious (and oblivious) stupidity being displayed, day after day.
We have no reason to believe anything's changed or going to change.

46.2M x £0.001825 = just £85,315.00
I don't understand why this is exciting to some.
If it were mine, I'd be excited.
But it's for a whole business, pretending that it's worth millions.
It's one drop in a puddle.

The amounts quoted above are just to get off the ground.
The placing will include more costs after that because (even if this turns into a real prospect rather than just another Sanderson) it won't generate immediate cash.
Product has to be sold first and that all takes time.

Nobody outside the board would have any factual evidence.
That would allow someone to gain an unfair advantage in trading shares and be against UK legislation.
Twitter is well named.

Summer's over.

Where have you seen anyone posting that there will be?

I'm an investor and fall under SCC.

Watch the film.
I didn't say anyone spoe untruthfully.
There were individuals who gave their reasons for rejection as something their own experts had gone to great lengths to explain and mitigate as having any substance.
Before the vote, the Chair explained that he couldn't understand why they were even being mooted as potential reasons and that they would almost certainly guarantee that SCC would face, and lose, a legal challenge costing voters at least £250k in court costs.
Nevertheless, those exact reasons were eventually given as sufficient to reject.

The guy who seconded them, revealed at the start of the meeting that he had a conflict of interest within his role.
His responsibility was, however, dismissed early on as being outside the remit of the committee and irrelevant to the application.

Another voter then asked for clarification on what he was being asked to vote on, whether it was to approve or reject.
He was told the vote was to reject the approval of the application.
I do not believe he was given a clear answer and he voted for the rejection.
The vote should have been to approve the application or reject it.
Who votes to reject an approval or approve a rejection, when it hasn't been approved or rejected in the first place?