Ann: Ceasing to be a substantial holder, page-13

You spend most days dismissing informative posters like @otherperspective as idiots (or SI, GG as corrupt, etc, etc), yet invariably talk complete fictions yourself regards MSB:

"It looks like the shorts have gained the required knowledge to unwind their short position from the highs of $3.30+."

As smart and witty as you think you are Plodge, even a child could look at the short positions vs the share price and gauge in two minutes that when MSB was momentarily trading at $3.30+ in early January shorts were at a lowly 2.8% of shares on issue. They then in fact, fell to 1.5% in the following two weeks i.e. in complete contradiction to your suggestion a load of shorts were profitably put on at $3.30. Existing shorts back then were in fact scrambling to take off positions - it was a well evidenced short-squeeze above $3 that in part drove MSB to its 52 week highs - not put them on as you casually assert....completely incorrectly.

For a self-confessed range trader of MSB (in your often displayed hubris) I'd thought you'd know that. So A) you are very poorly informed (i.e. wrong) or B) purposefully misleading investors (I do recall a bit of hubris on how your were hoping to buy below $1.50 - trying to talk the stock down perhaps?). One really does wonder to your motivation for so casually spreading misleading opinion on important matters to MSB so regularly/purposefully.

In fact even the most basic analysis would reveal nearly half the existing shorts in MSB have been put on since early March. You know....around $2 and lower.

The majority of shorts are in fact put on vastly lower than double the present MSB price that you allude to them being put on and the low levels of most being built recently, make strong argument to another short squeeze occurring on any positive news share spike.

Ahem, Type B FDA news on Heart for example.....