MSB trading, page-666

And yet again, commentary from a MSB cheerleader that involves nothing other than speculation about my motives.

Instead of the same, laboured routine of speculating inconclusively about what the reasons behind my posting might be, why don't you display some originality for a change and make some reference to whether or not what I have posted over time contains any factual veracity, or has been proven to be accurate, or otherwise?

For example, on which of the following salient points regarding MSB is what I have posted proven to be bunkum, or even vaguely wrong?

- the company's underfunded position posing a fundamental risk to the share price;
- Teva appearing to be an unwilling and unsuitable partner for MSB;
- the NASDAQ listing being poorly structured, and unlikely to be a panacea to MSB's funding challenges;
- the extension of the right of refusal to Celgene for zero consideration not being the good sign that some were proclaiming;
- the creation of the role of vice chairman being really irrelevant when it came to improved scope for securing partners (when others were saying that it was);
- Mallinkrodt not being in any position to be a meaningful financial contributor to MSB;
- Kentgrove not being all that it was cracked up to be (heck, there were many people on this forum applauding the Kentgrove announcement, but who had zero idea of how the Kentgrove facility would even work... and there some that still don't know to this day);
- MSB's share register not represented overwhelmingly by a mere small number of large institutional investors;
- the debt arrangements with Hercules to cost a lot more than the coupon rate quoted, and that there is not enough information made public about some very relevant terms and conditions of that debt.
etc.
etc.

So, feel free to point out where the posts that I have made have been plain wrong or misleading.
(After all, as you say, there are thousands from which to choose; statistically you should be able to find a number of them that are flawed).