General discussion, page-5674

Maybe because you're wasting space in an otherwise quality discussion forum with your garbage posts, the content of which is indicative of a level of intelligence akin to a 5-6 year old. You come here talking (in complete gibberish) about a $20 takeover with zero basis whatsoever, acting as if that's the best outcome for investors, and attack those who present actual reasons/evidence supporting a significantly higher valuation than that. We already know it's going to go to $20, then $30, then $50, and it'll continue higher given the fact this is still only valued at a billion dollars, which is incredibly low given what WA1 has.

If you want to be taken seriously show us the modelling you've done and the evidence/reasoning you have to support such a low valuation. At the moment though it seems that you're simply pulling a random number out of your arse without any explanation or reasoning to back it up. We've had enough numpties come and go from $1 to $17 doing the exact same thing as you are trying to do now though, hence the frustration when yet another one arrives to share their words of wisdom.