Of your 309 posts, it appears only 4 posts are regarding another stock, with the remaining 305 posts on EN1. (How this sort of information is relevant to the discussion on EN1 is beyond me.)
Are you saying that someone that posts solely on EN1, shouldn't? In which case you probably should apply that reasoning to yourself also. Or, are you saying that you can post as many posts as you like, but only if the posts are positive, motivational, and/or bullish? Or perhaps only holders of a stock can post as many posts as they like? If Hashimoto was a holder, would you treat him any differently?
Trying to critique the posts of another user by highlighting the amount he has posted, and whether he is a holder or not, is unproductive and irrelevant: this discredits you more than it discredits him. If you can't critique his analysis of EN1, attacking him personally won't solve your predicament.
It is becoming clear that there is a select group of posters on this forum that continually post upbeat posts regarding the stock, whilst trashing any critical posts, and ridiculing those that don't have the same sentiment as them; the same goes for those on the opposite side, with a second group of posters continually commenting negatively and critiquing all positive posts and attacking the posters. Any critical posts are immediately seen as "down-ramping", and positive posts are seen as "up-ramping". If you don't agree with any post, critical or not, reply with substance. Is it really that difficult to act like adults and focus on the stock, rather than each other? Or do you all just have way too much time on your hands?
Posters from BOTH sides are in my opinion guilty, at various times, of stating unproven projections or statements, both negative and positive.
In summary, this thread has turned into a group of 11 year olds arguing in a playground - "he said, she said" . So everyone, please grow up and begin to act like adults.
PS. Regarding the CEO's tweet:
1. Calling the down-rampers "donkeys" was surprising and unprofessional. My advice would be for him to focus on creating and maintaining a profitable company, and letting the numbers speak for themselves, rather than posting such comments and focusing on what the nay-sayers think..
2. Contrary to what the CEO has written, anonymity has nothing to do with credibility. The credibility of a post is entirely based on what it contains, (particularly that it is written saliently with a focus on real information), and is not based on where or from whom the post came from. The misuse of the word "ironic" is revealing - there is no irony between a person hiding his or her identity and critiquing a product or company.
3. Why is a CEO of a public company suggesting for people to "show themselves" and asking them "what are they afraid of"?
My sentiment is set to None, as there is so much white noise regarding this stock that who knows what is actually going on.
Does anyone have an idea how long the audited 4C statement is likely to come through? It's been 20 business days since the end of last quarter - what is taking so long? I'd appreciate if the CEO tweeted updates on this, rather than calling people "donkeys".
Expand
