Hank, remind us why Wexler feels the need to repeat his posts?
Your assertions are incorrect. I am not here to talk you people into buying REFR. I am here to remind anyone that what Wexler posts is disputed and that they are being manipulated by Wexler because he has already shorted REFR, and I suspect his friends and allies have, and they need HELP to get out without losing too much.
I do not suggest to people that they sink their life savings into helping me. I need no help. I have an investment in a real technology and I will have sales and I will have the price I want. People who short without spreading lies and hype can do what they want. People like Asensio and Wexler who ACTIVELY try to convince others negatively must be countered with SPEECH. Not guns or threats. Simply speech espousing an opposing viewpoint. Note that I could easily have posted the long message Nancy did but chose not to. I tend to write my own words but a few of the words in that post were, indeed, contributed by me. It was a group effort to refute the points raised by Asensio. Why should Asensio be free to publish his innuendo without reply? As it happens, it is not trivial to reply in the same medium he uses since he has status as an analyst, in a weird way, and can say anything as long as he is careful to make it his OPINION and chooses his wording.
I ask you again to be fair and ask Wexler similar questions. Why does he feel the need to periodically repeat his posts here (and as it happens elsewhere) and then expect the other side to just ignore him?
If you repeat assertions that I am talking what you call "BS," then I will rapidly revise my opinion of you downward. Anyone neutral on this stock, as you claim, has no motive to go after me and ignore Wexler as the one who keeps STARTING this thread.
Please show me how my writing has been designed to confuse? When I reply to specific allegations by Wexler and others, I tend to be quite direct and have the facts to back me up. When I tell folks that continued attacks will be met by rebuttals, that is indeed a general statement but it IS backed up by my earlier work, is it not?
Look, this forum was not created to discuss any specific stock. If this was the AMZN board and Wexler attacked AMZN, there would be no outcry if others disputed him, especially when his logic was faulty or his facts wrong. If this was the AMZN board and he insisted on discussing REFR, there would be legitimate calls to take it elsewhere. But, this is a board that is devoted to Wexler talking about what he wants. Any topic. Fair enough. I am not saying he can not post. I am saying I have the right to respond as long as I stick to the point. But, when Wexler repeats the same posts that have been discussed here, I do not feel the need to repeat my posts word for word.
What I have offered all along is a truce. If you guys see no reason to discuss REFR, neither do I. If you do, I reserve the option to agree or disagree. If all that was said was that REFR is in the news again or has heavier volume than usual, with no propaganda, I probably would not care.
Please explain why you object. Show me where I have attacked anyone here for their opinion of stocks I did not care about. Did I defend GUMM, for example, or agree that it could well be a good short but that I did not care and it had no connection with REFR. Was I disrespectful when I joined in with a Bio/Pharam discussion?
Am I stubborn? When I want to be, I can not be equaled at being persistent until I win. In this case, I have no interest in having a war or making points. I believe I will win in dollars made on REFR. My position in REFR is largely established and when I buy it is minor amounts compared to my holdings. Much of my buying is now for others who ask me to manage their money as a favor. It is just one stock and I am involved with many others that Wexler would not dream of shorting. LOL!
Wexler is a flea. Now and then, they get annoying and you swat at them. You would be much more interesting to debate since I have seen you talk very intelligently about topics you have clearly studied but I am not looking for a fight here. I am monitoring it as one of many places.
Near as I understand your logic, I am getting annoying because I respond. Sorry to hear that and ignoring me is trivial.
If you are still reading this, I believe I did take credit for the stock moving up a LONG time ago but not quite the way you think. I was just starting to take a sizable position in REFR at that time and often bought 10K or more very days for many days. My intent was not so much to foil shorts as to get my position established in time. I had money sitting doing nothing. A small stock with a low volume of trading does not make it easy to get in. I would then often wait a while and resume buying more carefully to not push it higher. Clearly, it was as easy to move the stock up against what was a weak set of shorts that apparently included Wexler, than it was more recently for the much larger group of shorts to push the stock down after I had largely established my position.
These days, I make no claims to buying heavily since I now see using margin as a poor choice and have sold some of the other stocks that got me to use margin. For example, I have no big holdings in IDT where my position was huge. Sold it all and took some profits and now have plenty of cash. I also took a few tax losses in other stocks or sold one index fund and bought another.
There are people I find interesting to deal with and people I don't. You remain interesting, if testy or stubborn, but I believe you know when to pick your fights. Wexler is boring and has no signs of serious intellect. Much of what he does seems to be based on listening to others, including Asensio. Some people think that with REFR, it was the other way around and he got in too deep and brought in Asensio to help him and others out. I have no way of knowing, yet, what the sequence of events was but I do think Wexler ought to be cautious because there is an ongoing investigation. I have nothing to fear as I am on the side of the ones doing the investigation. |
