Member Info for Spikeyj

hi mr picky, the sharetoken i posted did give full free access to that
article, but only for about one week or so after sharing it, then the
token expires. (can’t be bothered to look back at that edition, soz!)

11:37, seems just par for the course re ctag.

presumably denzal found that info from same source that
told him amit is a billionaire. (he hasn’t shared that either.)

? maybe worth checking the financials on centro
tecnologico de automocion de galicia, or the
romanian ctag automotive technologies srl, etc?

hubbabubbas 12:24: “…greed does funny things to you &
large financial losses does [sic] make you a tad angry & bitter”

well, at least that’s something we could
agree on (apart from the poor grammar).

denzal, those “recent links” don’t provide any kind of
independently verifiable information at all about -

.. any intellectual property, patents etc.
that CTAG might claim to own or control

… any kind of contracts, deals, revenues, payments /
delivery dates, etc. that anyone has actually signed off
with CTAG about anything CTAG owns or has the rights to

… anything whatsoever about any
current or recent financials of CTAG

… anything at all about CTAG’s supposed assets,
workforce, workstreams, premises/labs, etc.

… anything at all about any supposed
licensing deals, sale of any asset, etc etc.

evening antha, inclined to agree.

suspect several of the very new / recently activated trolling IDs
on this board are just multiple avatars of a particular individual.

meanwhile, live long and prosper etc. g’night.

no, this is not AIM.

if CTAG was a company on AIM, it would still be bound by at least some
UK rules & regs re the london stock exchange listing, FCA, & oversight by
a nomad. shareholders would get sight of things like audited accounts etc.

absolutely none of that applies to the current incarnation of
CTAG, which is just an unlisted private company domiciled
overseas in a pretty ‘relaxed’ & very opaque jurisdiction.

so far as i can see, the probative value of that link’s mention
of CTAG’s name is zero, in relation to whether CTAG has any
product, service, technology or IP of any significant value.

re 21:46, from an investment perspective, i would suggest it is usually
sensible to start from assuming that a company doesn’t have anything
of meaningful worth until/unless there is some independently verifiable
evidence to show that they do. CTAG’s never shown such evidence of value.

“… the. Technology of whatever it is that is licensable …”

comedy gold, cheers.

hubba, again, just to keep things factual, i have
never had any kind of short position re CTAG.

(and I’m not 90, ‘though that one is slightly closer to the
truth, as i have been around markets for a few decades.)

just to keep things factual, nope, i am not waseem
shakoor, & nor do i have any connection with him.

re 10:06, there has been no public statement from anyone, amit included, about
whether or not any cash will actually be paid out to shareholders, & if there is
what the mechanism /timing etc. would be to make any such payout. … cynics
like me suspect that either there will no payout at all, or that if there appears to
be one about to happen, it will come with strings and costs involved that would
actually make it cost more than it actually rewards. but the simple truth is even
if you are a big amit fan, and believe that he is honest, reliable & successful (!!)
even he hasn’t stated what exactly will happen & when & what shareholders
would need to do to cash in. so far as one can tell, UK brokers have only seen
exact same as pis, i.e. amit’s unverifiable update on cloudtag’s own website.

key issue with CTAG is the utter lack of independently verifiable information
about its operations, plans, products, dealings, IP etc. amit enthusiasts choose
to believe that reflects supposed NDAs - amit sceptics tend to think instead that
it’s just smokescreen obscuring lack of worthwhile genuine underlying business.

so take your pick, sit back, see what transpires.
(eating popcorn very reasonable idea anyway,
whether you are a believer or an amit-sceptic.)

“… it clearly worked back then…”. LOL!

not clear that celebrity endorsements are much of a guide to value/function
etc, particularly bearing in mind most such endorsements are renumerated.

some interesting developments stateside with some folks trying to find
legal avenues for holding to account celebs who appeared to endorse
products etc that turned out to be disastrous investments - the crypto
world in particular seems to have some current active focus on such:

e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCEUjBx_yXg

added.

evening knigel, nice to see you about, hope you &
yours are well and happy in these complex times.

TD doesn’t seem to grasp (- or pretends not to understand) the difference
between someone expressing scepticism or critique re the company /the
CEO, versus someone “slating any genuine shareholders”. different issues.

atb & gl all honest and polite folks.

fair enough denzal. if you don’t want to say, then of course you
don’t have to. (…my suspicion is, you were just making it up).

hi denzal, you never did explain what makes you think that amit is a billionaire.

? any link or evidence you can provide to support that claim you made? - tia!

(PS he’s not the messiah,
he’s a very naughty boy!)