My post referenced a specific claim by FeMike from a specific conversation including an exchange he had with Thermo. Trying to understand my exchange with Mikey without understanding the antecedents is a fool's game. It's not my fault you are trying to play that game and jeez, you even presume to speak for Mike without having a clue of the prior exchanges. I asked Mike about that lie originally in October. Mike referenced that post of mine just a few weeks ago and at that time I reposted links to all the original conversations. Your assertion that Mike doesn't know what I wrote to him about is you talking for Mike when don't know shit about what the previous exchanges were, WTF are you talking about?
If you must know, Mike for some reason likes to rag on people like Thermo, which he did in October, saying that Thermo was taking advantage of retail traders. He claimed to know by intuition that Thermo sold shares into the very short-lived run above 1.00 in October. He specifically asked Thermo at the time and Thermo said no he didn't sell, in fact he was a buyer. About a week after that exchange as Mike continued to attack Thermo and he falsely claimed "I asked him if he had sold and he didn't answer - that proves that he sold". Which is a nonsensical argument even if it were true, but in fact, Thermo had answered Mike in the negative. But Mike then lied about that a week after that question had been asked and answered.
Alphapuppies posting like a jackass about Navid (both the form and his trying to make a very big deal out of Navid selling 2% of his position) was a different issue, completely orthogonal to Mike lying about Thermo. To accuse me of being confused and unexplained in arguments you have not been following at all is nonsense at best. If you feel you need to understand then please follow the thread back upstream or kindly mind your own business before passing judgment on a discussion you don't understand in the least.
