speculation, page-27

I'll just briefly reply to the points raised, otherwise these posts get too long.

Opel24v,

No worries. But I think the researchers here are not being attacked in any way.

amg63,

Yes, there have been some great finds by the researchers.

Logic is just as valuable as research. My arguments are generally about logic, correlation vs causation, psychology, seeing if negative interpretations are as plausible as positive interpretations, etc.

I agree that OBJ seems to be progressing and is undervalued. PRR holders, for example, are complaining about their market cap, yet I think they are still overvalued. In this market, PRR's m/c should be halved and OBJ's should be doubled. These sorts of inconsistences are common at the moment.

If I criticised anyone here it was probably after 10 people criticised me for saying things like confidentiality did not stop OBJ management from giving us their impression of OBJ business timeframes. It seems to me that the confidentiality explanation had been insufficiently examined here and had become a core belief, so when I questioned it, people over-reacted and I was responding to that over-reaction or analysing that over-reaction in order to understand it.

As I have explained many times, I do not conduct research into OBJ since I think it is a waste of time due to confidentiality and management's persistence in using obscure and contradictory language. Also, I am satisfied to invest a small amount based on GSK's involvement. Nevertheless, I keep an eye out in case someone finds something that gives me a big enough reason to either sell or buy more. I reckon the time spent on researching OBJ is better spent on trading or researching companies that are more communicative. YMMV. I reckon we cannot be objective about OBJ because of the lack of data, but we can try to be as objective as possible about the minimal data we do have by deploying logic, analytical skills, etc.

Gbr,

No, I never made slanderous comments about OBJ management. In one post, I gave my opinion that management were not communicating well and had been slow to realise short-term commercial possibilities of OBJ tech. Smilez suggested that one of the words I used could have legal ramifications, so I asked HC to delete it just in case since I am not a lawyer and don't know the rules of the game. In another post, abdm had listed 9 questions that supposedly could only have positive answers, so I posted POSSIBLE "negative" answers to show that it is POSSIBLE for his questions to be answered in the negative. I was arguing that negative answers are just as plausible as positive answers. People took my post out of context and so they said it was defamatory and someone got HC to delete that post too. At the time, I explained my post quite clearly:

"I will supply some quick possible negative answers for the sake of balance (not because I think they are true or because I hate OBJ)… I think abdm was implying that answering the 9 questions ineluctably leads to a positive conclusion… So I gave 9 theoretical negative answers to balance that implication out. I clearly stated that I did not think my answers were true…"

Can it be any clearer than that?

I agree that it's best if people provide evidence to support their claims. But note that logic and analytical thinking also constitute evidence.

I invest a tiny amount in OBJ because I think it's a good bet due to GSK's extended involvement and their stated efforts to create commercial products with OBJ. ;-)

An example of a definite research discovery would be the unannounced patent that someone found a while back. Saying that P&G were looking for collaborators didn't prove that OBJ and P&G were collaborating. Note that I'm not saying all research should be definite. It's just that definite research is what I am keeping an eye out for.

You say, "All you need to do is follow the dots." But "following the dots" is precisely where the problem lies. The dots are open to interpretation. When I think the interpretations get too optimistic, I say so. I don't see why there needs to be any fuss about that at all.