Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
When you turn state's evidence, please remember to start with Mr. Wannabe.
Thank you.
A board in search of truth no doubt would do so - But now that I’ve given up my paid membership this forum and its endless ads make it clear that is not the goal.
Your non-denial as to issuing the communication naturally invites the question, well in what context would that have been okay?
Do tell.
The actual message did not discredit Abraham Lincoln, but disagreed with your attribution of a quote to him.
So, we're not at new lows and disagreeing with Abraham Lincoln.
We're just steady as it always goes, with another unique handle calling out more Poor Man nonsense.
It accurately happens all the time because of your handle's misconduct.
If reals respect reals, does that mean you have to be a nobody to assert that another is?
Regardless, pro-cancer crusader FeMike is definitely a nobody.
Imagine that - Poor Man continuing to publish false statements. Some people just don’t learn.
We thank you FeMike, for being our “good guy” where there are no others.
Oh thank you FeMike, for graciously saying as much negative or confusing stuff as you can in the early part of the day.
I don’t even look in your direction as I type this, out of deference to your majesty.
Speaking of arguably off topic. I don’t think even Argentina would accept you.
How about your competing detailed analysis? I don’t imagine you have anything sincere or helpful to say. As we see here again.
I was hoping you would have responded to my post to you, number 658061, instead.
Your negative spam handle has made another comment that doesn't really make sense.
Leave to amend would tend to suggest that the Court believes the next iteration of the complaint can withstand a motion to dismiss.
Too obvious. Settle in to the better quality material, don’t rush yourself.
Tag teaming against patients = not cool.
Where on the spectrum of Correct does this exchange land? In evaluating this, recall I am 1 of the 4 other replies you mentioned, suggesting my reference to Checkmate was not a proper indication that you had been wrong in the past.
Post 429032
exwannabe (I am revolted to type the username but it's what I had to do)
"Of course 548 failed.
It is just one of the endless string of trials that easily best [sic] historical comps yet failed."
Post 429172
flipper44
"Quack alert.
You have no clue if 548 beat historical controls. You’d need patient demographics and carefully matched ECA. Opdivo lost to the placebo control arm by a three month median in methylated MGMT. Here’s a hint Ex, placebo (Aka: SOC) did not beat SOC by 10 months."
For all that quacking over the years, I'd have thought you'd have a healthier appreciation for breadcrumbs.
Edit: You are in a very good position to embarrass me and show I'm wrong, because I really don't know much about this stuff. I'm largely relying on the famous nature of the lie, and that you abandoned the thread rather than respond, again.
What post would I need to show you for you to acknowledge, "Checkmate, I have been epically wrong in the past?"
I'm sure there's one on the tip of my tongue, I just can't think of it. Can you?
Makes sense, Hooch.
I thought the whole “pretending to be nice” thing was exposed months ago.
You should dabble on Reddit more.
I imagine that if I saw you on the street I would feel bad enough to give you at least $1.
I’m sorry that this post only gets you $.10.
It is my understanding that you voiced not just an opinion, but a very popular opinion.
It would be my pleasure to discuss these issues with you in person… - Feel free to DM me.
I didn’t see a No to my first question.
Shame shame.
Yes - This is what makes the spoofing and other illegal pack activity reprehensible.
It is a bad and questionable business practice. Can’t believe you didn’t know that already.
I have never boasted about harming a biotech company or suggested it could be a means of earning money. A fortune’s worth.
Have you?
LC. For once we agree: Don’t judge someone by only whether he or she has been sued. Look at whether the allegations brought against the poster, in conjunction with their behavior here, suggest a pattern and practice of being downright despicable.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner.
I recently had the privilege of being the **99th like** on your pinned post. That post certainly deserves its 100th like.
But the post to which I respond may deserve 1000!
Isn't it weird how some like yourself know everything about everything else but can't grasp the most basic facts regarding this company.
The easy response to your false assertion that everybody who disagrees with you is really only 1 person using many aliases is the fact that your handle's behavior is uniquely reprehensible.
It only makes sense that so many would note, and object to, your handle's conduct.
I gather the company intends to present an immaculate submission - but I had never until now considered the possibility of an Immaculate Submission. Let it be so!
This is next level trolling, I acknowledge it and good job.
In my post I suggested you need to read more carefully. You then responded to it, but your response shows you read it completely incorrectly.
I really did find this post of yours to be next level. Well done!
Marty, curious how much you actually pay attention to what is going on. It wasn't lost on me that you were engaging the "Hoofman" handle on a different social media website, maybe you just need to slow down and pay attention.
If ceaseless lies regarding a revolutionary cancer treatment get you aroused, boy are you in the right place.
As you well know - I just wanted to say it.
This is not attributed to any poster just thinking out loud - I cannot comprehend how one could contemplate the issues affecting this company and the "stakeholders" across many industries that are looking the other way generally to allow these things to happen, and yet find that this company presents the one and only instance where people are acting in concert (or, as part of a conspiracy) to cause harm. It's kind of a big deal that a revolutionary cancer treatment is experiencing these issues, but there will be no lasting effect accompanying this observation for most.
As an example, at one point there were a lot of...products going through Mena, Arkansas. To go further would be too off topic for here.
Yet another difference between the elites and the commoners - They say it will never work out when I internalize my problems, “But doc the MMs did it successfully why can’t I??”
I missed this until now.
LOL!!!
I would much prefer you drove a Yugo.
What about Connor Stallions as an intermediary? Now there's a guy who is good with both signalling and working under the radar and who is looking for a job!
I thought the scenario envisioned painted a highly unlikely scenario that is not very likely for a whole host of reasons, none of which entered into the scenario and would any of which would have made it a touch more 'honest.' That's just how I read it.
I note that your "fits of doubt" are linked only to whether management would "do the right thing" - I'm all for a good Spike Lee movie, but at this point to be suggesting that maybe the whole thing is at risk because of management doing simple basic untoward things, I cannot understand this approach. I guess that was really what inspired me to respond, that's all.
A more honest thought experiment acknowledges basic facts that would tend to dull the sharp concerns present in the incomplete and slanted thought experiment.
Without honesty we're all just Poor Men, after all.