Clovis Oncology Inc (CLVS) News

pointing out that someone else moved the goal posts doesnt mean you moved the goal posts...

goal posts, they didn't exist until you claimed them. thus then you moved the . posts.

I actually pointed out in another post that I put those pumpers in the same category so...

how subjectively objective of you

But you cant point out one instance where i did but ok sir

That's fine, I simply don't care. I present opinions and information to counter the constant pumper garbage (which is about as far from "objectivity" as possible). Take it or leave it. This isn't a court of law, it isn't journalism. I use my education, training and experience to identify what I

no sir, you moved the goal posts.

Based on that instance, I would have to disagree. If someone keeps moving the goal posts in negativity...it makes me question them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however.

INTC has gap down from $29 on 08/02

open after the 08/01 close...

Around $28.9 for those looking closer...

It needs to fill to help the long

term holder's positions...

https://www.barchart.com/stocks/quotes/INTC/interactive-c

so much effort to engage with a non objective person, because
you know he is objective.

Just always remember one can only trust small trial results from Anavex and never from any other biotech - WGT!

PS! this includes of course drip fed post hoc updates often over more than a year since failed TLR.

I'll take that a concession LOL

pfwheew... that's a chuckle.

Wow, just dandy after you out of nowhere, decided to go on a personal rant attack, violating one of the few rules here on this uncensored board.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174478595

Posts about other Members' family members are off l

I didnt make any claim at all other than saying that I emailed the auditor and they confirmed that they are handling the audit? You're still confused LOL

Lol, those Amish dudes have it right.

I come on these boards to take in all opinions and advice. Good or bad. My "issue" with you is that in that instance, your behavior indicates that you're not objective, so I am less likely to take your information with as much confidence as I would if you had showed me u were objective. Get it?

A new survey finds that more than 1-in-4 Democrats, 28%, think America would be better off if Trump was assassinated

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1836511736213704769

I get what you're saying, but you're the one who made the claim, he didn't. Therefore the argument only works if the auditor is legit.

Simple. You jumped into a back and forth between me and him without knowing that he initially claimed that BMXI lied about hiring an auditor. Your argument on his behalf was that BMXI could just have hired them for show so his argument still stood strong.

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/MHwjBKzC2t3jzKAn/?mibextid=6GsUZ4 A GROUND RULE TRIPLE?

So, you're only issue is that I am not "objective" and I'm a "hater"? Yet you don't disagree with most of what I post?

Seems like a roundabout way to admit that we both agree BMXI is an OTC scam.

I'm okay with being labeled a "hater" and not objective, doesn't bothe

I could give a fk if he's wrong. As I said, I am discussing the possibilities that your conclusion is erroneous.