Replies to post #6319 on Repros Therapeutics Inc (RPRX)

[iwfal]

Just so we are clear, I have no issue with BSR and their (implied) actions in this matter. In fact authors of investor stock newsletters make a living "finding" and releasing such nuggets. The onus is entirely on the regulated company (i.e. Repros) to not selectively disclose such information in the first place.

Suggest this is a gray areas - if a company willingly and expeditiously answers questions from all quarters do they have to do it publicly? Repros is about as willing as any company I've seen to answer specific technical questions from investors. For example, per DocBanker's post he called the company and got much of the same info that HPTAxis published. (note that I realize DocBanker is another investment industry person - but there are plenty of other examples apparent elsewhere on this board. I just can't list them offhand.)

[ethan77]

That is a ridiculous claim- a breech of Reg FD or protocol is lying about lot sample records or dose sizes. This is a serious allegation you are making QDot, one that has no merit. Aka asked Hptaxis to back up his claims with the science to prove it and all he replied with is some stupid metaphor about the lottery. Take his scattered postings as gospel at your own peril. Once again, it seems like trying to be more cleaver than the next poster becomes more important here than technical analysis or the science behind certain questionable opinions.

[io_io]

<<<"The post of Dew's that you cite and your claim that he was tipped off by the company about a takeout/merger seem entirely at odds with him selling out of a large, long-held position at or near the recent bottom for that stock late last year. Why on earth would he have done that if he knew they were going to be bought out?">>>

Simple explanation - if you saw the date on that post - it was in fact September - http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=32325621

- and indeed Dew was right, a "buyout or merger" was announced.

The fact that he had been mis-led, and that it was essentially a "CEO-buyout" and a shareholder-buyunder" is irrelevant. The evidence is clear that he selectively knew they were in talks.

As to his selling, I believe that was because he realised he was being fed BS so that he would post it, and he knew he could not longer trust his sources.


<<<"If you have I suggest you start asking questions of them.">>>

I did bring it up two weeks ago on the GTCB board - and was promptly banned !

By the way, I am actually following the GTCB story and hope to get back in. I think this is great time for these tiny stocks, and if you have any feedback on the ones I have suggested please let me know (here, or by email).