Ann: FDA Notifies Clinical Data Sufficient for Refiling aGVHD BLA, page-748

The person you are replying to is one of very few I have on a never to be replied to list on character grounds. He said I'd said something I hadn't said and wouldn't substantiate and wouldn't retract - everything I said then and here about that poster I can back up as being true. I could do it in court. But that poster is not that unusual and courts take time and are bloody expensive - and to claim defamation you have to show damages and on hotcopper pretty much everyones reputation gets trashed as a matter or routine. Lisa Wilkinson wants 1.8 million from network 10 apparently because she wants her costs for defending a defamation action against Lehman repaid her because the court found she was essentially telling the truth and Lehman is likely to be bankrupt so she's unlikely to get costs from him (but how many of us have the time and money to defend that sort of stuff at that sort of cost when the dingbat on the other side is of the character in that case). But this is not a forum on which truth is moderated for.

One of the characteristics of this forum (HotCopper generally not the MSB part) is that character attacks work. Be warned it massively increases the confirmation bias. And it harms price discovery in my opinion - HotCopper could actually be impinging on the fair operation of the market by allowing so many personal attacks on critics that offer arguments by swing traders that don't engage the arguments.

How many people do you know got the call correct and the reasoning correct ahead of time on the CRL # 2?

I've gotten big calls right on a number of forums that could have saved shareholders a great deal of grief. I was calling for the a beneficial ownership trace on a company dealing with a company that latter feel out with that company and that company just got delisted still wrestling with the same entity I was warning them about when they were friendly with them and I got attacked by the shareholders on this forum.

You can fact check me using this forum. But it almost never happens. Its like the swing traders don't care what was or wasn't true who was or wasn't correct (or even more importantly they don't care why, what reasons where offered for their positions before hand).

I cannot deny every casual misrepresentation that is made of my position, nor I must suppose can others, there are too many, its cultural. But the record of statement we have actually made is still there - still part of the record - unless the moderators remove them because some idiot claims something looks defamatory or something and the moderators remove it because they aren't set up to recognize truth.

Why would correct calls not be discovered and ticked even if they are years later if people were doing their actual research? Answer - because most here are swing trading and don't actually care what's true so long as they on the right side of the trade. But that is a problem if it actually hurts accurate price discovery because it biases commentary to the upside.

There is a poster turned up on CYP that looks quite similar to one that was supposedly banned. That banned poster spent much of their time attacking other posters - not their arguments but their character - on all the message boards - and that posters behavior encouraged others to do likewise and what happened was a sort of race to the bottom where analysis of stock went out the window and many posters became self appointed character assessors of others that hadn't asked for any assessment.