t4p, page-11

pecora...

Are you seriously suggesting that we should all follow Sue12's advice and sell out of CVI because he guessed another stock would not find gas?

Is this the gist of your post?

Will he actually be discussing CVI at any time in his assessments here, or should we not wait for this?

Mods, what follows is very relevant to CVI in that it clarifies an issue that we are seeing raised over and over on the CVI thread, firstly by Sue12, but as evidence by pecora's post (and others), not likely to end with her suspension.

Whilst I do not want to troll up this stuff...I am so over it...what Sue12 did on the GDN thread had nothing to do with being right or wrong and everything to do with infecting the threads with self-obsessed, low content rubbish to the detriment of all others...something that continues to this day.

We have a relatively happy community of like minded, generally friendly followers on the CVi thread...a scenario that quickly switched to angst an aggression when certain posters swoop in great numbers with the single goal of diminishing the experience for everyone.

The first thing they do is accuse genuine followers of being a ramping group, one assumes because they are consistently corresponding on the CVi thread. Sad perhaps that one would brand "community" as a sinister ramping group.

I have my suspicions about the real reason for this...and I notice bigscot has discussed the well documented phenomenon of paid groups who target various stocks via a pay-for-comment process...but perhaps enough said on this.

Anyway...for the record, I never had a problem with Sue12's posts on GDN at any time, in spite of the empty brevity of each, until he posted the infamous "rig moved - plugged and abandoned" subject heading just before the market open one morning.

This was clearly a calculated post designed to flush the last of the weak holders out of the stock...which interestingly enough went on something of a 100% rally from pretty much that morning onwards.

I ask you all...who would do such a thing?

To compare genuine, well referenced and clearly presented research on a pre-drill "risk rated" well-in-progress (based on official information provided by the company), to someone posting spurious comments like the rig moved thread, are hardly grounds for suggesting anyone got it right (or wrong).

Was the rig moved and abandoned?

This obsession with being "right"...it is simply not what the markets are about...nor what HC should be about.

One does not need to be right or wrong, negative or positive to be seen as a genuine poster.

So...what exactly was Sue12 right about anyway? Was it his comments that the well would not find gas, I mean...how can anyone know that prior anyhow? Was he right because he sided with the pre-drill risked 5:1 odds against the well being a success? If so, seems like a pretty safe option to me.

Or...was he right because he provided sound reasoning for his views, to the extent people could actually use them to make their own minds up...or dare I say conduct their own research?

Sadly no.

Show me just one post from this person on the GDN thread back at the time in question, which actually gave posters a reason to believe him...or at least look into his claims...that actually offered more than a low-content "sell now or else" type of empty contribution.

Just one!

As I see it, one-line "warnings" telling posters to avoid (or sell) any stock, without the slightest element of reasoning actually relevant to the stock in question, are hardly something anyone should be paying attention to...and if we did, we would be foolish anyway.

We all need to do our own research and determine things for ourselves; an impossible task based posts like "rig moved and abandoned", without any supporting evidence or factual relevance...which at the time he ensured at great length would become clearer down the track.

"Trust me...you will see" I believe were his words.

Still waiting.

So please, in terms of being "right" can you show me where Sue12 actually gave the HC forum the sort of supported views worthy of engaging a genuine response from genuine posters...where one could actually arrive at an informed decision?

In all reality, I suspect you are simply suggesting he was right because he claimed the well would not discover gas at a time nobody could possibly know this?

Is this not simply a guess?

In light of this perhaps, I find it interesting Sue12 also claims I am ramping the CVI stock to sell my shares...in fact he recently suggested I had sold out.

Another guess?

Apart from the fact I have actually increased and not decreased my holdings, what sort of person would actually post such a thing without possibly knowing?

Or perhaps I should ask why?

I suggest it might well be the sort of person who thinks nothing of stating that a drill rig had been moved when in fact it had not?

So pecora...with all due respect, Sue12's empty rhetorical posts on GDN, which is an entirely different stock with different directors operating in a different part of the world (regardless of whether he was retrospectively right or wrong by some selective twisted measure)...to put it simply, have absolutely nothing to with CVI, it's projects, it's directors, or it's potential to rise or fall based on same.

Sue12's "warnings" on CVI...and indeed your own support of his views based on what amounts to a spurious link...are frankly about as long a bow as I have ever seen drawn.

I will not be responding to anymore posts on this issue...and for your information, due to the manner in which people like sue12 target the stocks I have conducted detailed assessments on, I will no be doing it for any more stocks.

I fear you may shot an own-goal here.

Cheers!