Member Info for TerrorWit

Troublesome. Earlier today another poster asked if you were attempting to imitate Biden. To my mind this would be the equivalent of Donald Duck attempting to imitate JFK.

Not true. You simply don't understand the legal implications of declining a reasonable offer to settle. If Nanoco had done so and gone to court they would now be in administration and the receivers would be waiting for appeal or would have stopped the case.

The company's future guidance is all the evidence any investor should need. They aren't going to give you all monthly progress reports. They aren't going to go behind their NDA's. They'll tell you if things change either way. That's all you're going to get, no matter how much you whine about it here and rightly so.

If you can't hack it you know the answer.

Kooba

You can call it rubbish all you like since no-one cares what you think because we can all see that you're a hubristic hothead who talks a lot but understands little. You know that arrogance and self-awareness seldom go together, don't you?

The media reports of £500m didn't originate at Nanoco. Moat likely they originated from Hamoodi who pumped you all up with them. If you read the respective article in the Times where they first emerged you'll see it refers to "some people in the city" or similar words.

... and of course i support the CEO. If I didn't I would not be so stupid as to hold shares in his company and then troll him on line.

I mean, do you honestly think he's listening to any of your ignorant whinging and complaining whilst dealing with the likes of STM and managing his team of PHD grade scientists?

Anyone can read the record and see whether or not what I've written is nonsense but the fact remains that the majority of shareholders, who do not post on public forums, have not removed any of the board nor shown anything but confidence in them.

The truth is that people who didn't understand what they were doing tried to grab onto the coat-tails of Nanoco v Samsung out of unabated greed and don't like being called out for their own avarice.

Henry Historian

You and others created a cult that believed what it wanted. When your prophesies failed you got a cognitive dissonance that you have never reconciled.

The truth is that within a few weeks of the legal case being announced you had all convinced yourselves Nanoco could only win. A few weeks after than you had convinced yourselves that the amount of damages would be so large as to break records and that Samsung must be terrified. Then you tripled the damages for wilfulness without ever locating any case precedents where any judge had made such an award.

You then ignored or bullied away all those you tried to tell you to be more cautious some of whom had legal knowledge or business management experience or both.

You only listened to Tenner when you could interpret what he said to match your cultist beliefs. You ignored his warnings. You ignored that he was not in a position, in the middle of a litigatio,n to express anything but extreme confidence publicly. You ignored and excused institutional selling.

You ignored when a similar case (Amgen v Sanofi) changed the precedents and the respective law only a few weeks before the Nanoco vs Samsung the case was settled. By the way the existence of such a case is mentioned in the recent Hamoodi v LOAM summary judgement as a reason why there was concern at Nanoco.

In the event Nanoco settled £150 million, which by any account is still a huge sum. Over 90% of shareholders who have voted since seem to agree yet you and others still can not back down and have to keep repeating your accusations. This is to the detriment of other shareholders as well as being defamatory.

It is one thing to risk money on the stock market without getting the desired result. We all do that but you have to be pretty stupid to refuse the lessons of an expensive mistake and to keep on repeating it, which is just what you and Feeks have done.

"Platform technology which has been in production goods for almost a decade."

-------------

Here are some other current platform technologies: AI, EVs, self-driving, robotics, the internet, the cloud, video games, lab-grown meat, vertical farms, windpower, lithium batteries, thermal batteries.

None of these broke through in under a decade from their first inception. This is what I meant when I wrote earlier

"They also have no understanding about the technical complexities and hurdles to jump that are inevitable when trying to launch a new platform technology, which is not something that happens more a few times every decade."

The fax machine was invented by the Victorians but didn't succeed until the 1980s.

You think you're all so clever trying to second guess what's happening but you're out of your depth because you fail to grasp the whole context in which new things come to market and you can't possibly know what all the participants are attempting.

------------

You have to invest for the lifetime of the company so that you can benefit if and when it executes its whole strategy. No-one said there was no risk. No-one offered you certainty. You have to expect to tie up your money and you have expect there will be setbacks, like patent disputes. If you don't accept these truisms then you made a mistake and should reconsider what you really want.

Feeks. You can speculate all you like about what I've done with my time and how fulfilled it makes me feel but it's all hollow whilst your stupidity and self-inflicted bitterness are so obvious.

They also have no understanding about the technical complexities and hurdles to jump that are inevitable when trying to launch a new platform technology, which is not something that happens more a few times every decade.

It's all down to the patents, which most of those who post here have never read and wouldn't understand if they had.

Any notions that any of them could manage Nanoco better than the current BoD are their fantasies.

They're a bunch of teenage back seat drivers crying "are we there yet?"

"Share price same as 5 years ago! "

After £30milliion was returned to shareholders.

You speak for yourself and a tiny few others who are manifestly stupid and impatient.

That's why you're at odds with the majority votes and why there are so few contributors to the forums.

Feeks who got carried away, didn't listen to better knowledge, moved what little was left of his money elsewhere and then lost the lot when that investment got wound up.

Nanonano who promoted the idea that Nanoco's technology might appear in a high profile Apple device whilst having no visibility of the work of any of STM's two thousand other customers.

Why would anyone pay any attention to anyone to them?

Instead of listening to those with such anonymous credentials why not pay attention to the public credentials of of the two new non-executive directors? That would be my recommendation.

"No wonder no one trusts a thing coming out of BT's gob, why should they, his integrity shot to piece's! "

______

FACT: Tenner has been re-elected to the Board of Directors by over 90% of shareholders who have voted twice since the Samsung settlement in January 2023.

The stories being spread on this forum are opposed to the truth and designed to distract from the manifest stupidity of a tiny minority of short term holders who got caught out by their own lack of legal experience and understanding.

FACT: Since Tenner was first appointed the company has met or exceeded every milestone and commercial commitment.

However, there are a small few, some with multiple user names who insist on overwhelming the discussion with rhetoric and impatience. Everyone who matters understands this. It is a pathetic example of how the internet can be misused.

Shares are a long term investment. You can not expect instant gratification or daily news.