I will remain cordial, but you will likely not like my response. I am silence_twain on SeekingAlpha. I enjoy skiing, reading Mark Twain, and a variety of other hobbies. It did not occur to me to keep the same screename when I signed up, but in retrospect it would have made it easier. I am NOT Adam, Martin, or drumb. If you go back far enough in my SeekingAlpha comments, you will see I posted a negative article about Martin. I have no idea who Adam and drumb are. As for FaceBook, I am not a member of the site so I have never seen the Anatabloc page, but I have seen testimonials on other pages. I wish I had saved one of the pages because it was clear the poster was in over his head. He came into the forum touting the product and people immediately pointed out how what he said could not be true. Since I did not save it and I no intention of reading through testimonials again, I cannot post a link. Given how skeptical you guys are, I fully understand if you do not want to believe that anecdote and it is my fault for not saving the link.
Let me address a few quick things before I get to the part you will not like.
People like me are fundamental analyst, not technical. The fundamentals always win out in the end. Recently, a stock called BroadVision (you will see on SA I was critical of it) had numerous technical breakouts. That did not change the fact that it was a pump and dump scheme by Jonathan Lebded. Last year, Navistar at the start of the year had numerous technical breakouts. That did not change the fact that eventually the engine technology did not work. Both stocks inevitably crashed.
I would agree that what is forward is more important than what is behind them, but with frauds history always repeats. The process is pretty simple. Tout some deal or breakthrough science that never amounts to anything, but the impressive sounding press releases get everyone up in a lather. For instance, looking at the past allowed me to short REFR despite all the hype with the deal with Mercedes. That one worked out very well.
I am fully aware of this argument that Star can sue for a second time over a different time period. That has been an argument for the bulls for a long time. I am skeptical that somehow Star who could not prove infringement even if the patents were valid over one time period was going to prove it over another. Actually, my favorite part of my first time short CIGX (besides cashing out at a nice gain) was when Star lost to Reynolds, all the pumpers immediately put out pieces saying how winning in court was not part of the thesis of buying the stock. This was a complete 180 degree turn from before the courts ruled.
Let me clarify one last thing. John Hopkins does not mean nothing to me. It was a poor choice of words. I have several friends who graduated from Hopkins and they are very smart. My point was two fold. The first is having Hopkins do the testing is no guarantee of success. The second is that historically Star has delivered nothing, but impressive sounding press releases. Therefore, you need to understand more what is not said in the release versus what is said. This has proven to be a very important skill when you are short companies like BTX and OXBT.
Here is the part of the response you are not going to like. I could continue to go back and forth with you guys all day long, but I prefer to do other things. So I am generally going to let time dictate what happens. However, I will come back here if I am wrong about the Reynolds mediation and eat some crow. I wonder if you guys will do the same? In stock picking being right 65% of the time gets you into the hall of fame so being wrong will happen. I was fortunate to be right the first time on Star and I hope to be right again.
AI
