Replies to post #225595 on Lightwave Logic Inc (LWLG)

[F2]

I am reminded (and thank you to those who reminded me and us) that the run up in the past to 20 had similar folks with supposed connections to what never developed. Looking back, I know it was those who worked to manipulate both sides of this. The run up and the run down for their profit. I won't fall for it again. (and it does look similar). But this time, irregardless, Yves and company are truly bringing stock changing deliverables to market. I can't wait to get the next confirmation(s) (whenever it comes before year's end) that there are multiple large companies moving into stage 3 development where we are talking, engineering, prototypes, foundry yields, etc. all leading to ramp... So if it gets hyped again, whatever. I will be looking eagerly for the next public announcement ... the one that lifts this company into one that no one in the industry can then ignore. (actually, I think the last announcement had that effect already... another would significantly augment it.) I agree with X, that we would then likely move into the territory where a large behemoth wanted the technology all for themselves.... I haven't owned a company that went through competitors bidding for it, but I am ready for a first time...

Best to the longs,

F2

[tedpeele]

Your choice and you should be frustrated.

And you should be embarrassed. You should not make claims on a public board, especially in the position you have taken on that cannot be verified by all.

The following all shows how you’re mistakwn to say that all I have for evidence is what Stonkspro wrote:

Yves could easily say that it is not Nokia because Nokia is not a global 500 company. All he really has to say is that the PR was referring to a company that is currently in the global 500 and that it was not an error. That would not be a violation of NDA. That would be a statement of fact.

This especially should be clarified since the company has yet to put on an 8K which I think they should have put out legally.

I assume by now he has been asked, and he has not answered. That actually serves as pretty strong evidence that it must be Nokia, although its possible that he has not realized he can answer the question. Although this is an argument from silence, it is a strong one.

That’s even stronger evidence than what Stonkspro wrote. His ‘coincidence’ serves to support a consistent pattern with this company of prioritizing and using Plasmonics to keep investors on the hook and making them think things are further along than they really are.

But the fact that Nokia certainly has been and can continue to be referred to as a global 500 company by people that are sloppy or worse, also serves as potential evidence.

Your “platform“ argument failed to impress me as any form of evidence at all.

All things considered your position is on shaky ground. Why don’t you just call Yves and explain that he is allowed to answer a statement of fact in order to remove Nokia from consideration?

I’m suggesting he simply agree with the argument you’ve been making all along.

Can you see what I’m getting at yet? This should be a no-brainer that the company directly addresses.