Member Info for Spikeyj

10:41, yup.

jarrovian, if you take a little look at LSE t&c, you will see that those apply
to both invested and non-invested posters. this is a moderated discussion
site where holders and non-holders are both allowed to post, with no
different restrictions about things non-holders can post. if you don’t like
that, there are other discussion sites you could join, with different rules.

my own observation of EUA board is that anyone who expresses any
significant scepticism or critics of EUA or its prospects gets jumped on
& insulted or bullied, whether or not they are a holder in EUA shares.

jarrovian, i guess we’ll have to differ in our recollections
about posts on EUA discussion board, which is fine by me.

LSE admin allow both positive /enthusiastic and more
negative /sceptical posts to be made on this board, and
to remain there. i don’t think admin care in the slightest
whether people do or don’t like EUA as a share (why would
they?) ...they delete posts which are personally insulting,
aggressive, libellous, involve spoof or duplicate IDs, or
which are part of an extended series of posts apparently
being made to disrupt on-topic posting, or to bully others.

(& admin are actually very tolerant of some off-topic chat.)

the great majority of posts made on the EUA
board are positive about EUA and its prospects.
sceptical posts usually meet a barrage of insults.
if the board has a bias, it’s v. much to the positive.

“... already producing positive cashflows”

? what makes you think that?

18:47, luap, lse have banned the 'sharepuppets' word since at least
2013, nowt new there. - possibly because it's seen as a competitor?

they don't ban the term 'ADVFN', 'tho i have seen them ban peeps
for promoting that site, or making frequent cut and pastes from it.

A1EX, re 18:39, from observation of lse admin at work over the years,
they do seem to take the use of duplicate IDs fairly seriously, & usually
seem to give a permanent ban to someone found to be using them.

since TDT clearly has not been banned, that suggests to me that
lse admin do not agree with you that he was using duplicate ID(s).

enthusiasts here do seem to spend an awful lot of time focusing
on other posters rather than the company itself, although to be fair
your own satellite commentary is interesting & much more relevant
to the company and its shares than much of the other stuff posted.

what is very, very clear from that is the attempted clarification
from EUA that its “discussions” with CITIC were actually with a
relatively small HK based merchant bank, rather than a very
large investment bank, were not sufficient to resolve the issue.

c u later folks.

GFD 14/6 22:54: “TDT has serious, potentially criminal accusations to answer. I’ll be pursuing those tomorrow.”

blowhard fantasising.

17:16, good post.

A1EX, so far as i can see, TDT doesn’t pay - no rosette by his ID?
whereas lucretius was a paying member of LSE, which i think
may partly explain why he got away with so much for so long.

‘evening TDT. a week or two ago some posters here were suggesting that
they were going to try to organise some kind of legal action against you, to
do with some screenshot(s) they claimed you had modified before posting.

i was just curious, have you had much contact yet from police, summonses,
letters before claim, etc? (or were those other posters just b/*******, perhaps?)

15:19, from observation of lse boards over the years, it
certainly appears to be true that people who pay for L2
are given more warnings and chances from admin before
they get a permanent ban, compared to great unwashed
who are just here for free. but even those who pay do get
banned eventually, if they repeatedly break the lse t&c.

(- some people mistakenly think they have a ‘right’ to free
speech on lse. but of course it is actually moderated speech.)

(important not to confuse volatile
market with a disorderly market.)

RMR, loads of other companies, on AIM & elsewhere, go through
periods when part or all of those other companies are up for sale
with more than one potential bidder, without being suspended.

sure, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. as & when
they RNS to resume or delist, more may become clearer.

...factual matter what the RNS of 15:11 on 11/2 said,
factual that EUA remains suspended more than four
months later, & factual that AIM companies are not
permitted to suspend just because they feel like it.

plenty of repetition on this board from many peeps...

djm1 06:42: “Why are we still suspended?”

it seems that EUA remains unable to give sufficient clarification to satisfy
AIM regulators about the (supposed) relationship with CITIC, more than
130 days after trading in EUA was suspended pending such clarification.

(maybe someone dropped the apocryphal engagement letter
on the site at WK, and they’re rummaging in the dirt to find it?)

added

& again.

added, smallish.